Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive AD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Sex pages

Erotism in film (which I originated) and Nudity film list shall be merged, and the photo in the penis page removed, because children access these pages..what do you think? Antonio Mr. Nightclub Martin

Disagree with removing the pic, but might be masked in the article; see clitoris for an example of this approach. As for the merging, it's up to you. Meelar 02:51, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No comment about the merging. Question for Antonio - what's wrong with a child seeing a picture of a penis ? theresa knott 05:08, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Keep the picture. This is not a children's encyclopedia. RickK 05:11, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Exploding Boy 05:15, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Information: in UK schools, children first see full frontal male nudity in health and hygene lessons. These lessons occur in primary schools when the children are aged about 9 to 10 years old. At secondary school, they get the basics of sex in biology lessons, when they are around 12 years old. They see pictures of men and women naked, as well as cut away diagrams, and videos of people "doing it". By the time they get to 14 they will learn about STD's, prevention of pregnancy, emotional issues, in fact everything they are likely to want to know.They are exposed to pictures, films, diagrams and models. (Two models I like, are the model penis that's splits straight down the middle, If you peal the two halfs apart in fron of the male teachers they always cringe, and the condom model that has a syring attached that you fill up with wallpaper paste- what will they think of next!) Kids are fascinated by all this stuff. theresa knott 07:19, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

They also already know all about it (with perhaps one or two odd ideas) about two years before any of this. At least that was true when I was that age, more than 30 years ago - I'm sure it's even more true now. Graham 07:27, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking about this a while ago. Would it be a good idea for all of these articles to have a seperate wikipedia article for graphic images? For example, penis could have diagrams (of the internal goings on and the external appearance) which should be suitably clear to be informative, but not particularly taboo. Then there could be a seperate article for photographs or other more taboo images of the penis. This way if you end up at Photographs of the human penis you can't complain that you didn't know what the page was going to contain, and people who don't wish to see them can still access the article penis. This might also work for images not related to sex, for example photographs which might be distressing or make people squemish (like open heart surgery, etc). Just to make myself clear, I see this as a way of including more images than we have at present, not as a way of censoring our content, and as more useful than just linking to an image file (like on clitoris) which divorces the image from the encyclopedic commentary. fabiform | talk 08:01, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This would make sense, and would allow users of an external rating system to specify the actual URL containing the possibly offensive picture, thus allowing those of a nervous disposition to block it. It might also allow for later expansions of the Mediawiki software which might allow restriction of access to certain articles according to User Preferences, etc. In other words, you could specify that you wanted a warning if you inadvertently accessed an article of a certain type, or even have the system refuse to produce it. --Phil | Talk 09:35, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, this is a good idea. There was a thread on this problem some months ago at one of the mailing lists and I gather no definitive agreement was reached. The problem is worth a deep thought. Not only for sex matters, but also for "violent" (whatever the word be) images. Compare: here in Spain we were bombarded by the press with (awful and distressing) photos of the (sorry for the example but...) burned corpses of American Citicens in Iraq some weeks ago, while I gather there were none in the USA. Would the WP have those photos? Where? In the main namespace? The software thing and "evaluation", "user preferences" looks almost-ideal for my taste. Pfortuny 09:46, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I object to that idea on the grounds that, first, it's unnecessary duplication, and second, it presumes that certain things (images of penises, for example) are inherently objectionable or obscene. Exploding Boy 10:13, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's not duplication since the photos will serve a different purpose (and the entire text of the article wont be duplicated). And perhaps using penis as an example isn't that helpful? Consider our article vulva - this currently has no images, and I gather from the talk page that it used to have a photograph, but it was removed. Now I'm not saying that I think vulvas (or penises) are shameful and shouldn't be shown in our encyclopedia, I'm saying that they absolutely should be shown, but that not everyone wants to see them. If I added photographs of vulvas to our article, I'm sure they'd be removed. So, what I'm suggesting is a pragmatic compromise so that they are just one click away from the article. Hopefully the pictures would be of a higher quality than are currently included within an article as well (for example the pictures on penis are black and white and small, I imagine that even thumbnailed large format colour photographs would be seen as less tasteful and some people would object). fabiform | talk 10:29, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No, it is not inherently objectionable content, it is "categorized content", so that if I do not want to see maps in the articles (to put another example), I may in my preferences filter all pics to maps (for example, because I am using the wikipedia as a teacher and I want my students to place an article in a map I give to them).
Of course this is far from easy and you could say that the Wikimedia software does not need to do it. But if users want it, in the future it could well be done. It is not about "inherence" but "preference". Not "objective" but "subjective". One could filter "all images with the word blast in the description", or "corpse", or "attack", or "body", ... (some regexp thing). I think it could even be put in the javascript part of the software, if the "alt" label sends, for exmample, the description text of the image (and thus the server is not cluttered with perl sripts looking for filtering words). Pfortuny 10:56, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sorry (I just realized). In this case there is no need to have the separated pages thing... Only images ought to be clearly described. Pfortuny 11:05, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nobody is putting sexually explicit images all over Wikipedia. They are added to the pages where they are on topic. The penis image is on topic on the penis article. If you don't want to see a penis, don't read an encyclopedia article about penises. Simple, no? If we start moving away images that are "objectionable" to some, then I'll move away the image on erotic spanking immediately. Because surely it is more objectionable for a 6-year-old to be indoctrinated with the kinky "sex" practices of their parents than to see a photo of genitals that 50% of them already have.--Eloquence* 11:59, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

I'm tired of the argument that children use Wikipedia. For one thing, how do we know that's true? For another, as has been pointed out repeatedly, even if that's true Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia designed for children. For another, it's up to every parent to monitor what their child is doing online; it's not up to Wikipedia to censor itself because children might access its articles. I simply can't imagine why anyone accessing an article entitled "Penis" would be offended by a non-erotic photographic representation of that organ. I realize that the penis image is not the only one we're talking about here, but doesn't Wikipedia policy say that if information is relevant to an article it's better to have it in that article, and that the fewer times a user has to "click" to find the information they're seeking the better? This whole thing mirrors the questions about censoring certain words. I'm against both. I would support an option for signed-in users to have a text-only version that displayed no images at all, but I'm against any sort of rating system. Exploding Boy 12:17, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Eloquence and EB. If parents don't want their children to see something, it's up to them to supervise. As a parent, I have no problem whatsoever with my children looking at an encyclopedia article on penises that contain photos, and I suspect that most parents have a similar attitude. There are things I don't want them to do on the net such as talking to strangers in chat rooms. I consider it my job to make sure my children don’t do it. theresa knott 12:29, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm not talking about children. Nor am I talking about censoring. I'm talking about adding content in a way people will accept. We have a problem when articles like vulva cannot be correctly illustrated. What about female circumcision, or genital mutilation - Eloquence do you really believe that people would click on those links expecting to find photographs clearly illustrating the results of those practices? Your argument that people shouldn't click on a link unless they're willing to see a photograph of the subject at hand is nonsense, many people would expect diagrams and no photographs on articles about anatomy, and there to be no illustration at all for many articles on sexual practices, birth, death, torture, and the like. I'm not suggesting that all photographs of anything remotely sensitive be ghettoised, but that in cases where most people find certain encyclopedic illustrations inappropriate to put directly into a article, they can still be presented. fabiform | talk 14:02, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Just to clarify my position, I never said "censoring" or "rating" (describing something is not rating afaik and rating the semantics of a photo is quite complicated). And I had in mind something different from the "penis" article when writing about this (although that was the starter of this thread). Theresa Knott is on the other hand absolutely right concerning children and parents (it is not the job of WP to look after them -the children, I mean :)).
Maybe the clitoris article option is a good compromise, although not necessarily. Pfortuny 13:53, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that the solution on that page is less than adequate because it assumes that any photo of human genitalia is potentially offensive. The photo in question has a warning ("warning: This photograph may be considered offensive by some viewers"), and apparently it kept getting deleted from its original location ("It used to reside at Image:Clitoris.jpg, but it kept getting deleted from there... "). Exploding Boy 14:07, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

To play devils advocate - any picture of human genitalia is potentially offensive to at least some people. I don't know if we will ever find a solution to this problem. theresa knott 14:21, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Setting what is "offensive" to whom aside for a moment, perhaps we can agree that photos carry a different, more emotional content than facts, and that it can be difficult to get to the factual detail of the text with a strong photo (in any sense) sharing visual space. To put it another way: the argument that children might be using Wikipedia and must therefore be "protected" is perhaps spurious, but I think we should be trying for a result that can be used, say, in a public library. Mixing up content that is acceptable in such a context (factual text information, diagrams) with content that clearly isn't or is likely to cause problems for both the Wikipedia and the user (explicit photos) means that the former won't be used to its best advantage because of the latter. I favor the link-to-seperate-page-for-image solution; note that this approach is in no way censorship, but simply an editorial decision of the type made by everyone here all the time. Jgm 15:50, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I don't like that solution either, it seems more "ooh look a naughty picture" than a link to a wikipedia page simply called something like "photographs of the clitoris". Plus there's no commentary - where's the description of the image, the discussion of what's visible externally v. its real size, etc? There's not caption whatsoever to describe exactly what the picture shows. It feels divorced from the article to me, and not that useful unless you already know all about female anatomy. fabiform | talk 14:27, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just a quick note, in case I don't get another chance to add to this debate, to say that I agree with the idea of making seperate images of... pages - I especially agree with Jgm's point about the text thereby becoming more useful. Now, as for when we use this approach, I suggest we don't go overboard, but just create a seperate page if we have a reasonable amount of images and related information that would otherwise greatly reduce the audience of the article in question (for any of the reasons people have already suggested). - IMSoP 16:47, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not to sound like an asshole, but maybe the people who find a simple photograph of a penis so terribly offensive are better off staying away from Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but if someone is really going to be irrevocably damaged by looking at a pictorial representation of male genitalia, they have a WHOLE LOT of baggage and other issues that Wikipedia can (and should) do NOTHING about. So maybe we should just leave the photo there with the full knowledge that it may well drive some people away through their terrible offense and say good riddance. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:58, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
Just to reiterate what many people have said already: We're not just talking about penises any more. (It's not often you get to say that!) Some of the things discussed are far more sensitive (Oh dear, bad choice of words :-/ Never mind, you know what I mean.) - IMSoP 18:16, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Here's the problem, just because we're not JUST talking about penises anymore doesn't mean that we're not still including them in the overall discussion. My point is that maybe the people who are "offended" by these images really ought to take their ball and go home. I'm sorry that some people take offense to these images, but there's nothing that can be done about that (except possibly those people taking their heads out of their asses). I'm fine with people being disturbed or upset by certain images. I'm even fine with them being embarrassed or ashamed of the fact that they find certain images tittilating. But you know what? I have zero patience for people who are OFFENDED by them. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:25, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if people found the pictures on penis titilating. :) I'm not sure how helpful it is to throw your hands in the air and say you have no patience with other users in a given situation though. I don't find the pictures on penis to be offensive, and I don't suppose most users do, although the erect penis shot is one which couldn't be broadcast on television where I live (i.e. there is a taboo = some people would be offended by it). Frankly, I don't believe that there are no images we might wish to illustrate an article with which could never offend you. So perhaps you could better appreciate what I'm talking about if you think of pictures of death or torture or whatever your particular limit is, and imagine how we could include such images in wikipedia sensibly. fabiform | talk 18:40, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if there weren't at least a few people who find some of the pictures on Wikipedia titilating (for example, the picture on Bikini), even if not the penis images. I'm not throwing my hands up in the air, I'm taking a stand. I'm saying "no" to catering to the whims of nutzoids. As far as finding images which we might use to illustrate articles... I doubt you would find any which would OFFEND me. I might be disturbed by some of them. Some of them might make me uncomfortable and I might wish to avoid viewing them... but I'm not going to be offended by them. Here's the problem. I understand that some people don't want to see certain things. That's great, there are certain things that I don't want to see either. But I'm not about to say that my preferences should dictate how others are allowed to access information. If I don't want to see something, I won't look at it. If I accidently stumble across it, oh well, I'll survive. I am NOT going to blame Wikipedia if an article on torture has a picture of torture. That would be moronic... as in the action of a moron. What pisses me off to no end, and I think that this is reasonable, is people who get all in a huff and all pissy about these sorts of things. "Oh dear me! Oh, how could you have that image! Oh lordy lord, saints preserve us!" Forgive the hyperbole, but people who go around being OFFENDED by things need to lighten up. I'd be perfectly happy shipping most of the to Antartica or a moon colony, but hey, no one asks my opinion on these things when they're making policy. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:13, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Look, we've been through this a million times before. What we can all agree on, I think, is to put images which would be considered offensive by most Wikipedia readers on separate pages. That, to me, does not include a tasteful picture of a corpse (such as Gunther von Hagens' Body Worlds exhibits), but it would include the kind of stuff you find on rotten.com. It certainly wouldn't include pictures of a penis or a vagina.

Furthermore, we are bound by United States law not to include in an unrestricted area certain images which would be considered pornographic/obscene under state jurisdictions, particularly the state of Florida where the Wikimedia Foundation resides.--Eloquence* 19:21, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Well, what we can all agree is that the above paragraph is not definitive, I hope. Discussing matters is a right in an open society, isn't it? And trying to find a solution which best fits everyone without assuming that past solutions are eternal.Pfortuny 20:03, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It should be eternal unless there is a reason to change it. Allowing all but the most offensive pictures in articles is the only compromise we have been able to agree on in the past, and having this discussion again is unlikely to lead to any better results. In fact, the only possible outcome that you can realistically hope for is that the anti-censorship side will get tired of arguing with you and your side will be able to push their way through. I doubt that this is what you want. You will not be able to change the minds of people on something that touches their deepest feelings and convictions.
So unless you have a suggestion for a new way to deal with this problem (such as the rating system idea, which was quickly rejected), or have some fantastic new argument for dealing with it in a method which has already been discussed, we are wasting our time. As much fun as it may be to talk about naughty pictures, especially for people who would normally find this difficult to justify, we are here to build an encyclopedia, and wasting our time on this issue every 3 months is not going to help us do that.--Eloquence* 20:25, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Mary McGrory's 1975 P.P. article

If anyone has a copy, please send to gil.garcia@ed.gov

Thanks

In case anyone was wondering, I think P.P. stands for Pulitzer Prize. This wasn't obvious to a non-American (me). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:01, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's not obvious to this American, either. Kevin Saff 15:46, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Not obvious to me either... although I am curious as to why Pete thought that Americans as a group WOULD find it obvious... ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:39, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry didn't mean to be confusing. McGrory's recent death was quite well reported in the States, but not elsewhere. Even so, I guess it's still quite a poser - I had to look at her article to make the leap. The article also appears to give the answer to the original inquiry actually - she was awarded one of Prizes for a whole series of commentary articles about Watergate so it is not right to think of a specific article. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 20:48, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Editing sections

Why can't anon users edit sections? RickK

Main Page: Where is it?

I tried to get into the Standard Main Page, but it wasn't there. What happened to it? JB82 04:03, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Broken external link

Can anybody tell me why the external link at List of rock and roll albums#references doesn't work? Doesn't appear to have any illegal characters... Tuf-Kat 19:22, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

It had two actually: the tilde and the apostrophe. Not only are they illegal in URLs, they also get eaten by the Wiki software. i've replaced them with the proper %7E (~) and %27 ('). Anárion 19:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Question for oldbies

Many people are aware of the Rambot era when 35,000 articles were added to the database in about a week (October 2002). This increased article count by about 60%. However there was another blip in late February 2002 when around 5k articles were added, again in about the space of a week, this was another 25% or so rise. My question: what were these articles? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:19, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, that was when Tannin joined the project, Pete.
Ah thanks, I'll hazard a guess that was when our bird coverage suddenly got dramatically better, then :-) This graph illustrates the sudden leap. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:39, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Actually this graph demonstrates it even better. In excess of 17,500 edits a day... more prodigious than even Rambot.... can only have been the infamous Conversion Script (may he rest in peace)... which somehow created lots of new articles... Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:49, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, but User:Conversion script says the script only converted from Phase 2 to Phase 3 software... I assume those graphs use the "at least one link, not a redirect" definition of an article throughout - although the count used at the time was different (the comma count, and before that, the anything goes count). Maybe the conversion script introduced links, thus giving the impression of lots of new articles.... or it killed subpages, which weren't counted... or maybe it was something unrelated... come on put me out of my misery.. :)
Well, I'll bet my bottom dollar that it was the conversion script alright - this page of it's contribs, for instance, shows 500 edits within one minute on the afternoon of 25 Feb 2002 (a whole load of redirects, by the looks of it); there's another 500 on the next page, still with the same timestamp. Now, why this boosts the page count statistics I'm not sure - but presumably the pre-conversion stats are either from a different source (using different criteria) or have been reverse engineered somehow.
In fact, if it's the latter it could be to do with history conversion - if a page had only one edit (its creation) before conversion, it will appear to have been created by the Conversion Script, even after the old histories were recovered and merged in, because the last edit of each article got eaten by the import (see Wikipedia:Usemod article histories). So if the stats have been generated by looking for the beginning of the edit history, they'll erroneous conflate conversion with creation for anything with no imported history. - IMSoP 15:19, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ah yes thank you very much! The stats scripts will count any article edited only once prior to conversion as created on conversion day. That solves it, and the stats are undercounting article number upto Feb 2002. Thanks again. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:29, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

New article series - weapons of mass destruction

There's a new article series on weapons of mass destruction if anyone is interested. Any suggestions on improving the format with respect to logical layout or "prettiness" are welcome. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:43, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

I've clicked all over for this series, but can't seem to find it anywhere. GWB
Mediawiki:WMD is the mediawiki source, click on "What links here" from there. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:37, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
Erm, I think it was a joke. GWB can't find them...? The link's useful anyway, though. - IMSoP 22:26, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
*sigh* .... I need to get more sleep... that was SO damn obvious... --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:19, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Mary McGrory's 1975 P.P. article

Move this to reference desk

If anyone has a copy, please send to gil.garcia@ed.gov

Thanks

In case anyone was wondering, I think P.P. stands for Pulitzer Prize. This wasn't obvious to a non-American (me). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:01, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's not obvious to this American, either. Kevin Saff 15:46, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Not obvious to me either... although I am curious as to why Pete thought that Americans as a group WOULD find it obvious... ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:39, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry didn't mean to be confusing. McGrory's recent death was quite well reported in the States, but not elsewhere. Even so, I guess it's still quite a poser - I had to look at her article to make the leap. The article also appears to give the answer to the original inquiry actually - she was awarded one of Prizes for a whole series of commentary articles about Watergate so it is not right to think of a specific article. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 20:48, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

South African elections

If there are any South African Wikipedians who are interested in politics, could they get in touch with me? I have been searching in vain for detailed results of the South African elections and need some advice. Adam 04:27, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

IEC (Independant Electoral Commision). Also see this and possibly this.
Thanks, but I'm familiar with the very unsatisfactory IEC website. For some reason it gives only voting figures but no information about who got elected, which is what I want. Adam 11:29, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Page duplications

I've seen this happen several times today: someone will make a small edit to a page, and somehow the entire article will end up doubled or tripled. (Check the histories of, for example, RFA, Quickpolls, and Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.) Is there a software glitch somewhere, or is it just a world-wide outbreak of boneheadedness? —No-One Jones 02:19, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Obligatory - " "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein" →Raul654 02:48, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
This happened to me at Wikipedia:Requested articles/music, and I'm quite sure I didn't make a mistake. I was moving links around and thus editing several sections at once. It would have been quite difficult to accidentally cut and paste from several edit pages, in order, into a whole nother window. Tuf-Kat 03:54, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
It happened over at VfD recently. That was a mess to sort out, since it went uncorrected for a few days. -- Cyrius|&#9998 04:46, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
I doubled a page once, what happened was I clicked on submit twice in quick succession (jittery finger!), this took me to an edit conflict page (with myself). As far as I can remember, the "stored version" appeared not to include my edit, so I did some copy/pasting to merge the two versions and clicked submit. I didn't realise that's I'd actually doubled the page until someone else came after me and corrected it. I'm still not sure how exactly it happened because I wouldn't have copied the whole of "my version" into the top edit box at an edit conflict. fabiform | talk 19:17, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Will somebody please block the vandal at 129.93.211.55 ? --Juu

Redirecting Interwikied articles

I am unclear what the policy or common practice is. The case I ran into is corpo. I briefly considered putting it on VfD, since I don't see how it can become more than a dic def. Then I thot I'd just redir it to student corporations, but when I hit Edit, I saw it is linked from two other languages. If it can be cleaned up summarily, I think that would be better than putting on VfD, I'm just not sure how to do it. Niteowlneils 00:42, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mediawiki codes in foreign languages

I was looking at the Zh wiki all messages page, and was wondering if it would make better sense to let them use pinyin (ie the common roman alphabet transcription) for msg:names - same for ar, he, etc. Sorry if this message is misplaced, but the meta link up there doesnt go to a specific page for comment. -Meerkat

Language names

There is a problem with language names at Wikipedia in other languages. "Slovenčina - Slovenščina" are two diferent languages with almost the same lokal name. So I suggest a change to "Slovenčina (Slovak) - Slovenščina (Slovene)". I'm a newcomer, can anybody help? duxborutguy 15:30, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nomination for the Mediation Committee

Dannyhas been nominated for the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. Please add your vote there. -- sannse (talk) 11:58, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello from a musician in Lisboa

Hello

I am a Norwegian man from Karmoy a island on the west coast of norway,that is doing poetry and music. Now I live in Lisboa Portugal , maybe my work is something for the users of Wikipedia and the young ones !?

All the best from

Ove Jan Olsen

OJO Mobile Phone : 00 351 967439034


Poetry and Lyrics :

Stranded In The Danger Zone

Website : http://www.geocities.com/athens/ithaca/2636/


Music : OJO Elektronic 2004 27 Songs To Download

Website : http://www.freewebs.com/ojoelektronic/

If you can help with examples of already notable works of music, great, but keep in mind Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or self promotion. Thanks. Dysprosia 22:49, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yugoslav copyright law

Perhaps it is stupid to ask this question here, but I don't know any better place. If the answer to my question is positive, it would then have HUGE influence with material related to Serbia and Montenegro.

Article 6 of the Copyright law of Serbia and Montenegro states that:

It is not considered an authored work:
2) official material of state organs and organs which have public function

To me, this is similar to Title 17, Section 105 in the U.S. copyright law, which says that government has no copyright protection which is why we are able to use all those nice pictures from NASA etc.

Now, my question is: is an official web page "official material" in this context? For example, official site of Belgrade is at http://www.beograd.org.yu/english/index.htm. Now, the page says 'copyright: City of Belgrade' but it is unimportant if it cannot be copyrighted by law.

If noone could come up with an answer, I will surely try to research this further. Suppose that answer is positive. What would be accepted as authoritative enough confirmation by Wikimedia foundation?

(Full law in Serbian could be found at, for example, [1].)

Nikola 02:45, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm a newbie, but it strikes me that if there is a doubt, it is better to be safe than sorry. In other words, better to ask for permission even if the permission is not strictly needed, than to use images without permission and get in trouble later. You might want to check out the following example of a letter that was sent by a Wikipedian to a British government authority as an extra security. --Woggly 05:47, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Problem is that there is a vast amount of material that could be used, and large possibility of getting negative answers even when they should be positive (even people working in aforementioned organs might not know about this). Nikola 07:23, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kyiv vs. Kiev

We could use some more voices in the discussion currently at talk:Kiev. It's been argued that "Kiev" is appropriate because it returns more google hits, but that (Soviet-imposed) spelling is offensive to many Ukrainians. The Government of Ukraine has formally requested that their capitol be spelled "Kyiv" in English; a request that has been honored by the UN and the US State Department. While google hit counts are useful in many cases, I don't feel that we should allow them to enslave us when other important factors are involved. There is precedent for correctness overruling hit count, e.g. with Gdansk/Danzig and Mumbai/Bombay. Please chime in at talk:Kiev so we can reach a consensus one way or the other and get the article unprotected. Mkweise 17:28, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This issue seems to come up a lot. The "official" name is different than what everyone else calls it. Consider Mumbia vs Bombay , Kiev vs Kyiv, Makkah vs Mecca. I think we need to be consistent, and I think we need an official policy on this. →Raul654 17:36, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

A general policy will be more complicated than you might at first think. Consider for example Burma versus Myanmar, where there is significant doubt that the government edict is supported by the people. Wikipedia currently sides with the military government and the UN, and against the US government, the more common English usage and (probably) the people of the country. I don't think that's too strong a statement, and while obviously this decision is POV either way we need to jump one way or the other. Andrewa 19:27, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
For the record (and in case this comes up again), we already have a rule on the books for this - "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." (Wikipedia:Naming conventions). →Raul654 19:31, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
Well, that settles it, simply, clearly and unambiguously, in favor of Burma, Kiev, and Mecca. Danzig/Gdansk (keeping consistently to alphabetical order) is an interesting one: it's not so much figuring out what the average reader will recognize as making sure that the reader will realize that they're the same place. This is due, of course, to Lech Walesa and associates, who made Gdansk real to people all over the world who had neither known the history of the place nor very much cared. The moral: as Scoop Nisker used to say, if you don't like what's in the news, go make some of your own. Dandrake 00:37, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
It certainly will come up again. For the present, I think 'Kiev' is overploweringly more recognizable, and I'd never even heard of 'Kyiv' until reading this section. But as long as we have redirects and have sufficient explanation in articles that use the names, we ought to be able to go by our own policy and not be too far afield. ;Bear 20:40, 2004 Apr 11 (UTC)

Agreed with keeping Kiev. Many, if not places are different in English to their local name (think Munich vs Munchen). However, Myanmar is the accepted name for Burma now in the same way that Sri Lanka replaced Ceylon, and most up to date English reference materials seem to refer to Myanmar rather than Burma. Dainamo 11:18, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Myanmar" is most certainly not "the accepted name for Burma now in the same way that Sri Lanka replaced Ceylon." Ceylon was changed to Sri Lanka by a democratically elected government. Burma was renamed "Myanmar" by a gang of murderous thugs who have hijacked the country so they can loot it. The elected leader of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi, opposes the change, which is why the governments of the US and Australia don't recognise it. If gangsters kidnapped your children and renamed them, would you recognise the new names? Adam 03:19, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Of course, one thing that makes Burma/Myanmar different to the rest is that they are completely seperate names, not merely alternative renderings. Even Danzig/Gdansk and Cologne/Köln are clearly variations on the same basic name, and there is therefore more scope for arguing that one of them is the "English version". Not that this rule can be applied universally either - Deutschland/Germany, for example... - IMSoP 14:57, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have created Wikipedia:Naming policy poll to settle this question once and for all. Please vote there. →Raul654 04:20, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Proposed meetup in Minneapolis

See Wikipedia:Meetup if interested

Mug shot, Moral question

The Mug shot in James Bulger murder case is image is schocking for me ! In France it's a simply crime to publish the photo of a child convicted of crime. Ericd 20:08, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In the UK (the country at issue) it's also generally illegal to name a minor suspect or criminal, or even publish information that would reasonably allow someone to identify them (never mind to show their photograph). In this case, however, the names of the two convicted children has been published innumerable times (as have these and other photographs). Our article isn't quite specific enough about why the reporting restrictions were lifted, but they were. Wikipedia's article is considerably less detailed than many media reports of the time. So I'm sure what we have is entirely legal. I can't answer moral questions for you, but wikipedia seems to have adopted an informal policy (such as in the Kobe Bryant rape case) of publishing information that's readily available in reliable mainstream media, but not publishing stuff that's only available via more "samizdat" channels). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:41, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I in my turn find it shocking that a free press can be prohibited from publishing the name of a child murderer, such as the current name of Mary Bell. I rather suspect it's a matter of thinking that what we're used to is correct. - Nunh-huh 02:58, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
By the way, those boys are now 21 and have been released with new identities. There's an injunction in England and Wales on publishing photos of them grown up, or their new identities and locations. I imagine it would be perfectly legal for wikipedia to publish all that (since its based in the USA), but that is where I think we should draw the line. As Finlay said, the images on our article (and more besides) were widely published in all our most reputable press outlets, broadcast on television, etc. fabiform | talk 03:16, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Fabiform, I think we need to establish exactly what the situation is re publishing. If I access the net in England and read Wikipedia, is the publishing not actually taking place in England? What is the situation if the person who posted suppressed informatiion did so from England where it was suppressed? Can based in the USA ever be a defence? Moriori 03:41, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
Well, there's nothing in our article which would be illegal to publish in England or Wales, in fact, it's less explicit and contains less photographs than it might legally include. But as far as the law goes (IANAL) the servers are located in the US and we are obliged to follow US law - we don't have to try to follow the law in every state and country which has internet access (how on earth could we do that anyway?). fabiform | talk 04:08, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I didn't know that the the usage in UK was to give new identities. I don't remember of a similar cas in France that why we keep identities secret.
Ericd 03:25, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't think it's standard practice in the UK, because children's identities are usually protected at trial (so it wouldn't normally be necessary). Various elements of the original trial were criticised by the European Court of Human Rights, including the fact that they were tried as adults (you'll find more about this in the article). fabiform | talk 04:08, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Who is the author of an articles

See Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia (link also e-mailed to fortspoon@aol.com IMSoP 14:42, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Upload file page design

What with the loooong purple box; is it just to discourage vandals from uploading, by making it look like more legal text than it is? -- user:zanimum

"Summary" -> "Edit summary"

I've noticed at least one person admit that they were put off entering an Edit Summary at first, because they weren't sure what it was a "Summary: " of. The obvious solution to this is to change the text to read "Edit Summary", and I think this may require no more than an edit of MediaWiki:Summary (although I'm not sure, see below). See (and reply at) MediaWiki talk:Summary - IMSoP 21:06, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

KKK

is there a way to get the interwikilinks of http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Kluks_Klano to work? the 'ux' becomes automatically some sort of special 'u'. -Listener 13:05, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

PS: as workaround i made a redirect from Ku Kl.
Ŭ, U with breve. In Esperanto, there are 6 letters with special accent marks over them. Since few people can type these letters and they're hard for printers to get and the letter X is not used in the language, they are often represented as cx, gx, ux, sx, hx, and jx. If you had looked over eo:Kiel redakti paĝon, the solution would have become apparent. - Woodrow the 23², Emperor of the United States 23:32, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
For all curious: that is, writting xx instead of x, so the link would be "ku kluxx klan". -- till we *) 00:55, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for that. I didn't know quite how to word it, so I just assumed that even those not familiar with the tongue (Eye for written?) could figure out what it meant. - Woodrow the 23², Emperor of the United States 01:27, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

columning

Is there any way of making a page split into two columns? LUDRAMAN | T 03:19, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you want two columns of text, then you could just use a one-row two-cell table. If you need elements to match horizontally, then you'd need a many-row table of course. fabiform | talk 06:12, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Letting people know how to cite

Looking at the ref desk, I see that 2 people within the last 3 weeks have asked basically the same question on that page alone: How do I cite Wikipedia? Now, every time someone asks, we can happily point them at Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia, but given the frequency of these questions, perhaps it would be useful to tell them before they ask.

Now, I know there's already quite a lot in there, but one option is the footer at the bottom of every article - where the Copyrights and Disclaimers links live. If we tidied up the page on citations a bit, perhaps we could link to it there - after all, we want to be cited as a resource, because it will boost both our visibility and our reputation! Any other suggestions for boosting the visibility of this information are of course welcome. - IMSoP 21:06, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the footer will work. We tell users that they must own the copyrights to everything they submit, yet the number of copyvios is still quite high. (however, with the new edit box header for new pages asking that users test in the sandbox, the number of tests has decreased from what I remember it used to be...) Dysprosia 05:41, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, we need to do something, because it's beginning to get silly how often we're asked. I'm guessing that anyone who is trying to cite us will have looked pretty hard for the information they're expecting, so all we have to do is put a link wherever they're likely to look. This is different from copyright information, which people aren't looking for - we have to grab their attention with that one. I think the footer would be the perfect place, were it not so cluttered already. - IMSoP 14:49, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's in the Readers' FAQ, and is the first thing to turn up on a word-search for "citing" (as well as the first result on a Google search for "citing wikipedia.") My guess is that those who ask it haven't looked very hard, or aren't search-savvy enough to know where to start. I don't think it's too much of a problem to answer this relatively frequent question on an individual basis, though. Who knows? The personal interaction might even get the questioners more interested in the WP community. -- Wapcaplet 22:10, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"The Free Dictionary"

This site: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/ seems to be picking up all Wikipedia non-stub articles and offering the material without attribution as a free online encyclopedia. Obviously, this is not a copyvio, but I'm curious about the relationship (if any) with Wikipedia. Is Farlex, the site proprietor, just opportunistically using Wikipedians' work to pump up a site and sell banner ads? JamesMLane 04:10, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not a copyvio my eye - they are *not* allowed to copy our material unless they are granted permission to. The GFDL provides them that permission, provided they abide by the terms. If they don't provide attribution, then they are not abiding by the terms, they have no license, and they are violating our copyright. →Raul654 04:12, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
On further searching, at the bottom of every page: This article was derived fully or in part from an article on Wikipedia.org - the free encyclopedia created and edited by online user community. The text was not checked or edited by anyone on our staff. Although the vast majority of the wikipedia encyclopedia articles provide accurate and timely information please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article. This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License.. They are abiding by the terms, so somone please add it to our list of mirrors. →Raul654 04:14, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)


That site is a cool presentation of Wikipedia content. If you hover on a link, then a small window of text opens up and exposes the first part of the linked article for preview (you click the link to get at the rest of the linked article). - Bevo 04:40, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


And if you double-click on a word, it looks it up in a dictionary. -- Cyrius|&#9998 05:07, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)


They've done this properly including attribution and a full link back from each article to its Wikipedia counterpart. I don't see any problem with their implementation. It's nicely done.-- Derek Ross 04:56, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


As usual with the forks and mirrors though, they make the GFDL text as inconspicious and small as possible but make their own (c) much more prominent... even though they have no copyright over the actual text, just the layout. I don't think there has been one fork who has entered into the spirit of a free encyclopedia... merely just tried to make some profit by dumping our database and paying as little lip service to the licence as they can get away with. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 06:23, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


OK, sorry, I missed the attribution on first glance, for the reason Pete points out. The Farlex people certainly don't go out of their way to make it clear that they didn't do the work. Under each article they put a table with some "What links here" links, although they don't call it that; then comes the "Encyclopedia Browser" chart, which has the ten preceding and ten following topics in alphabetical order (admittedly a useful feature); then a "Full Dictionary Browser" that repeats those twenty links and supplements them with twenty more links to dictionary definitions in that alphabetical range. All of this takes up about half my screen. Then, under these tables, all the way down at the bottom, in what looks to be about 7-point type, they put the attribution notice that →Raul654 found.


Even if you find that notice, you'll read only that the article was "derived fully or in part from Wikipedia." Their copyright notice says that they "use multiple sources of data." All this is pretty disingenuous, given that the few articles I've checked were essentially copied verbatim. The only change I've noticed was the deletion of links to nonexistent articles. The proprietors (or, I suppose, their bots) even pick up stuff that's on VfD (e.g., Christopher Zarba). Interestingly, however, they omitted at least one non-stub -- namely, the article on the subject "Wikipedia."


Their own copyright notice also states: "The site contains copyrighted material, trademarks, and other proprietary information. You may use the content of up to 10 articles from the site without an express permission from the publisher provided a clear reference to the source of information is given. If the information is placed on a web site, a link to the source or home page is required." Only then does it mention that "[s]ome articles" are GNUFDL. I suspect a more accurate statement would be that the "Dictionary" portion of the site is copyrighted but the content of the "Encyclopedia" portion is entirely GNUFDL.


Their whole process of grabbing our database is probably automated. If I turn these comments into a Wikipedia article about Farlex, emphasizing the facts that show what a bunch of sleazeballs they are, do you think it will appear verbatim on their site?  :) JamesMLane 06:43, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If the TheFreeDictionary link comes up before the Wikipedia link in a Google search, tell Google via thei search-quality@google.com address. I reported that a spammy version of Kolmogorov's zero-one law appeared above the real Wikipedia version in the results, explaining that the Wikipedia version of any such article is the authoritative one. About two weeks later, I got a mail back from them, stating that it had been fixed. Sure enough, the search I'd done ("kolmogorov zero-one") now showed the Wikipedia link above the TheFreeDictionary link. Of course, now it's gone back the other way; I suppose TFD has some kind of attempt going on to exploit Google's algorithm or somesuch.

If you plan on doing this, make sure you include the exact text of your search, so the Google folks can do their job more easily. If enough folks do this, we'll take eyeballs away from TFD and bring them here, where they might even contribute. Grendelkhan 08:30, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

I can't imagine that Farlex and these are other sites are making much money if any off repackainge Wikipedia content. Running banner ads for "Classmates.com" is pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel. As someone who has been through the wars of e-commerce and seen the worst of it, I can affirm that if you ain't offering your own product for sale, or if you're not a highvolume site selling proprietary ads (like Drudge or Fark.com), or you're not really good at affiliate programs, then you better have a day job if you want to peddle free content. Perhaps I'm wrong: if so, I'd love to know how they are making it work. -- Decumanus | Talk 06:07, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Moreover, a legal agreement can't do much to enforce things like "spirit of usage" which seems to be what disturbs people about this. If somebody wants to do things just like Wikipedia does, they'll probably do it here. Jgm 11:13, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think TFD.com are one of the better mirrors of wikipedia content. They've got other features (dictionary, classic lit. search) using public domain text, as well: so they've at least done some programming and thinking, rather than just a straight dump. Features such as article text in mouse-over are quite original too. Even though it's tiny, they do mention the GFDL; i'd be tempted to make a long legal string like that small size too.
My favourite mirrors though, are the ones that have a link to edit the article, which goes to the wikipedia.org article with &action=edit. I think that's a nice compliment to the wiki concept. T 12:24, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it's too bad a provision to require just that wasn't integrated into the Wikipedia usage license. Jgm 11:13, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Question for T: Is their dictionary stuff from a public domain source? I checked a couple entries to see if they were just grabbing the Wiktionary content, and they weren't. I concluded that perhaps they were doing their own (copyrightable) work on the dictionary, then supplementing it with Wikipedia content to make their site more useful. As for linking, I'd consider it dishonorable to run a site like theirs and not link in the way you describe, regardless of what my lawyer told me about copyright law. JamesMLane 17:20, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yep, they have to link back to the original article. Which they do. Some mirrors also have a specific edit link, that takes them to wikipedia to edit the article (as opposed to just viewing the original).
I'm pretty sure it's one of those expired PD dictionaries that they use. At least for many/most of the entries. I looked up a random word: Fyrd, then googled for their result [2], they show up as well as www.thesaurus-dictionary.com, www.brainydictionary.com, www.webster-dictionary.net, hyperdictionary.com, monsterdictionary.com, hipwords.com, okay, enough examples, you get the picture :-)
I think the only copyright they have is over their 'site content', whatever that is. But it's fair enough for them to claim it. T 22:53, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Referencing Disinfopedia

THe article at Michael Johns is copied from the Disinfopedia article at http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Michael_Johns. If they are GFDL, how do we reference that fact? RickK 03:41, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just like we do with Wikinfo articles, see Jay Lovestone as an example.--Eloquence* 04:00, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Active MediaWiki bug?

I am presently experiencing what i take to be a bug in the interaction between the MediaWiki msg facility and the database. I'd be glad to either work around it, or assist a developer in collecting evidence. --Jerzy(t) 19:28, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

Specifically, the preview of my edit of penology, to which i am adding

{{msg:crime}}

seems to reflect the initial version (1st edit) of MediaWiki:Crime rather than the changes that others (and i today) have made to MediaWiki:Crime. Could the Preview-rendering code have an error in its use of the DB for MediaWiki references?

(On reflection, my obvious workaround is to go ahead and save the edit (and let someone else worry about it, or not). Instead, i am keeping the edit window open. --Jerzy(t) 19:43, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

When I try the same it works fine, it might just a case of Wikipedia:Clear your cache. andy 19:55, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, it is not fully repeatable for me either: opening a 2nd edit of the same article and making the same change as the same user, it works as i would have hoped. Keeping this window open as well.

I don't take the cache explanation seriously, as i don't believe i have seen the msg before, and that version is a month old; i've cleared my cache, i believe more than once since then. --Jerzy(t) 19:59, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

In fact, would a cache problem not have to be the result of my having done the same edit before? I am not talking about looking at a page representing the MediaWiki page, but looking at the Preview the server sent me when i added the msg to the page i am editing. I surely have never edited it before! The server thinks the obsolete version of the MediaWiki msg applies to my eidt! --Jerzy(t) 20:04, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

(Full disclosure: on one hand, i've never checked the "all files" box described at the cache-clearing meta-article, and on the other, i think would make a difference only if my "Items to synchronize" window said something other than "There are no offline items to synchronize". But in any case, IMO this has to be a server-side problem, for the reason already stated.) --Jerzy(t) 20:20, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

If you're logged in nothing is cached on the server side. A memcached problem is my (vague) guess. -- Gabriel Wicke 22:01, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reread. Caching on the client side cannot explain the phenomenon, for multiple reasons. I did not suggest caching problem at all. I suggested a bug (timing window?) in the way the Preview-rendering code interrogates the data base re msg calls, or in the database itself. --Jerzy(t) 23:51, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

Per new info, there are known MW bugs (slated for correction) that are similar enough to be likely explantations. --Jerzy(t) 06:56, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)

Abagnale move

This is not exactly vandalism so I am bit at the loss where to include this: inexperienced anon user: 213.170.47.89 transferred text from Frank Abagnale to Frank William Abagnale Jr. with a cut-and-paste method, meaning that the edit history was severed and exist now only in the former page, which he turned to redirect. Since I cannot delete pages or anything, maybe somebody could do something to it. Sorry for intruding on the Pump. - Skysmith 12:23, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As Frank William Abagnale Jr. had no edit history aside from the cut-and-paste, I just reverted the changes on Frank Abagnale and made Jr. a redirect to the original. If it's ever decided to do a proper move, then the Jr. page will need to be deleted. -- Cyrius|&#9998 12:48, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

Working through Special:Ancientpages

Special:Ancientpages is a list of the oldest articles on Wikipedia, that is, the ones which have been edited the longest time ago. In my experience almost all of these articles could use some loving attention. To approach this more systematically, I have added a box to the Wikipedia:Community Portal where the oldest article at any given time can be featured until it has been touched up at least a little bit. This can happen within days or within minutes - it's up to you. Hopefully this will also give people an incentive to visit the CP more often.--Eloquence* 12:33, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Redirects from Article to Wikipedia namespace

Is it appropriate to create redirects from the article namespace to the Wikipedia namespace? For example, I was looking for Wikipedia:Article series just now, so I typed "Article series" into the go/search box, and found an empty page. Since one of the purposes of redirects is to make it easier to find thing, I was about to create a redirect to the Wikipedia namespace page, but then realized that this might be good practice. What should I do? Adam Conover 04:53, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

There are many, many, many existing redirects to the Wikipedia namespace. Case in point, Village pump redirects to Wikipedia:Village pump. Hell, Redirect redirects to Wikipedia:Redirect. Just don't create redirects to another wiki. -- Cyrius|&#9998 06:08, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! Done and done. Adam Conover 06:11, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
There are many such redirects for historical reasons (originally we didn't have namespaces). But we shouldn't create more without good reason. Everytime we make explicit reference to Wikipedia within the article namespace we make things more difficult for re-users of our content. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:30, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The order of interlanguage links

I would like to have a policy on how to sort interlanguage links. It's obviously a good idea to sort them alphabetically, but on some pages they are sorted by the language code and on some by the language name. This is very notable in the case of Finnish language ("suomi"), which is placed somewhere before French language ("français") by the code but right before Swedish language ("svenska") by the name. I think sorting by the language name is more logical to the reader as the language name is the only thing shown, but there is no written policy. -- Lakefall 18:51, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is no fixed policy yet - but a poll is running for some time already at Wikipedia:Language order poll. Currently the sorting by local language name is leading the poll. andy 19:14, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

plagiarism

hi my name is mandy and i'm doing a project on kenya, just to let you know, http://www.mapzones.com/world/africa/kenya/historyindex.php - has almost the exact information you do, i know that this is plagarising and i don't know whose plagarising who, but i thought i let you know.

  1. Kenya: Fossils found in East Africa suggest that protohumans roamed the area more than 20 million years ago. Recent finds near Kenya's Lake Turkana indicate that hominids like Homo habilis and Homo erectus lived in Kenya 2.6 million years ago
  2. Kenya: Fossils found in East Africa suggest that protohumans roamed the area more than 20 million years ago. Recent finds near Kenya's Lake Turkana indicate that hominids lived in the area 2.6 million years ago.
Looks pretty similiar →Raul654 17:50, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
I did a little more tracing. That info was copied into our kenya article from the History of Kenya article. Those sentences were added during this edit by a bot. →Raul654 17:54, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
I suspect that both are derived from some sort of public domain source like the CIA factbook or such. Bkonrad | Talk 18:04, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Such as this from the U.S. State department Bkonrad | Talk 18:10, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I just realized the question was about plagiarism. Although the information from the U.S. State Department is public domain, that is not copyrighted and can be freely copied, it really should be acknowledged as the source. Copying the information without attribution is plagiarism. Wikipedia (and the other sites that use it) should acknowledge the source of the information. Bkonrad | Talk 18:14, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I added the correspondin note at History of Kenya The bot itself should've been doing this, to avoid suspicions of this kind. Mikkalai 18:17, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Actually the bot in question is the Conversion script which imported data from the old usemod database into the new one. According to its "user page", the usemod histories were imported only later, and

...the conversion script entries in history remained, in most cases appearing to perform whatever was the last edit prior to the conversion.

So the script itself didn't acquire that information from anywhere other than Wikipedia - somebody added it, but their identity is lost in the mists of time. - IMSoP 19:05, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Where's Wikisophia?

What happened to WikiSophia? I was using it to generate PNG versions of PPCHTeX diagrams, and now the site's down and doesn't want to come back up. Does anybody know where I can at least get a copy of Wikitex so that I don't have to do these by hand? Grendelkhan 16:47, 2004 Apr 17 (UTC)


Seems to have been dead for a while... I miss it also. Dysprosia 09:47, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I asked on meta; the response by Eloquence[3] says that the developer disappeared. The punk. Grendelkhan 23:58, 2004 Apr 18 (UTC)
I too would like to see it (I only found out about it after it went down)... in the mean time I hacked together a way to do it on my linux machine, see my user page. Rkundalini 09:14, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sex pages

Archive to wikipedia talk:profanity?

Erotism in film (which I originated) and Nudity film list shall be merged, and the photo in the penis page removed, because children access these pages..what do you think? Antonio Mr. Nightclub Martin

Disagree with removing the pic, but might be masked in the article; see clitoris for an example of this approach. As for the merging, it's up to you. Meelar 02:51, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No comment about the merging. Question for Antonio - what's wrong with a child seeing a picture of a penis ? theresa knott 05:08, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Keep the picture. This is not a children's encyclopedia. RickK 05:11, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Exploding Boy 05:15, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Information: in UK schools, children first see full frontal male nudity in health and hygene lessons. These lessons occur in primary schools when the children are aged about 9 to 10 years old. At secondary school, they get the basics of sex in biology lessons, when they are around 12 years old. They see pictures of men and women naked, as well as cut away diagrams, and videos of people "doing it". By the time they get to 14 they will learn about STD's, prevention of pregnancy, emotional issues, in fact everything they are likely to want to know.They are exposed to pictures, films, diagrams and models. (Two models I like, are the model penis that's splits straight down the middle, If you peal the two halfs apart in fron of the male teachers they always cringe, and the condom model that has a syring attached that you fill up with wallpaper paste- what will they think of next!) Kids are fascinated by all this stuff. theresa knott 07:19, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

They also already know all about it (with perhaps one or two odd ideas) about two years before any of this. At least that was true when I was that age, more than 30 years ago - I'm sure it's even more true now. Graham 07:27, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking about this a while ago. Would it be a good idea for all of these articles to have a seperate wikipedia article for graphic images? For example, penis could have diagrams (of the internal goings on and the external appearance) which should be suitably clear to be informative, but not particularly taboo. Then there could be a seperate article for photographs or other more taboo images of the penis. This way if you end up at Photographs of the human penis you can't complain that you didn't know what the page was going to contain, and people who don't wish to see them can still access the article penis. This might also work for images not related to sex, for example photographs which might be distressing or make people squemish (like open heart surgery, etc). Just to make myself clear, I see this as a way of including more images than we have at present, not as a way of censoring our content, and as more useful than just linking to an image file (like on clitoris) which divorces the image from the encyclopedic commentary. fabiform | talk 08:01, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This would make sense, and would allow users of an external rating system to specify the actual URL containing the possibly offensive picture, thus allowing those of a nervous disposition to block it. It might also allow for later expansions of the Mediawiki software which might allow restriction of access to certain articles according to User Preferences, etc. In other words, you could specify that you wanted a warning if you inadvertently accessed an article of a certain type, or even have the system refuse to produce it. --Phil | Talk 09:35, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, this is a good idea. There was a thread on this problem some months ago at one of the mailing lists and I gather no definitive agreement was reached. The problem is worth a deep thought. Not only for sex matters, but also for "violent" (whatever the word be) images. Compare: here in Spain we were bombarded by the press with (awful and distressing) photos of the (sorry for the example but...) burned corpses of American Citicens in Iraq some weeks ago, while I gather there were none in the USA. Would the WP have those photos? Where? In the main namespace? The software thing and "evaluation", "user preferences" looks almost-ideal for my taste. Pfortuny 09:46, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I object to that idea on the grounds that, first, it's unnecessary duplication, and second, it presumes that certain things (images of penises, for example) are inherently objectionable or obscene. Exploding Boy 10:13, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's not duplication since the photos will serve a different purpose (and the entire text of the article wont be duplicated). And perhaps using penis as an example isn't that helpful? Consider our article vulva - this currently has no images, and I gather from the talk page that it used to have a photograph, but it was removed. Now I'm not saying that I think vulvas (or penises) are shameful and shouldn't be shown in our encyclopedia, I'm saying that they absolutely should be shown, but that not everyone wants to see them. If I added photographs of vulvas to our article, I'm sure they'd be removed. So, what I'm suggesting is a pragmatic compromise so that they are just one click away from the article. Hopefully the pictures would be of a higher quality than are currently included within an article as well (for example the pictures on penis are black and white and small, I imagine that even thumbnailed large format colour photographs would be seen as less tasteful and some people would object). fabiform | talk 10:29, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No, it is not inherently objectionable content, it is "categorized content", so that if I do not want to see maps in the articles (to put another example), I may in my preferences filter all pics to maps (for example, because I am using the wikipedia as a teacher and I want my students to place an article in a map I give to them).
Of course this is far from easy and you could say that the Wikimedia software does not need to do it. But if users want it, in the future it could well be done. It is not about "inherence" but "preference". Not "objective" but "subjective". One could filter "all images with the word blast in the description", or "corpse", or "attack", or "body", ... (some regexp thing). I think it could even be put in the javascript part of the software, if the "alt" label sends, for exmample, the description text of the image (and thus the server is not cluttered with perl sripts looking for filtering words). Pfortuny 10:56, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sorry (I just realized). In this case there is no need to have the separated pages thing... Only images ought to be clearly described. Pfortuny 11:05, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nobody is putting sexually explicit images all over Wikipedia. They are added to the pages where they are on topic. The penis image is on topic on the penis article. If you don't want to see a penis, don't read an encyclopedia article about penises. Simple, no? If we start moving away images that are "objectionable" to some, then I'll move away the image on erotic spanking immediately. Because surely it is more objectionable for a 6-year-old to be indoctrinated with the kinky "sex" practices of their parents than to see a photo of genitals that 50% of them already have.--Eloquence* 11:59, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

I'm tired of the argument that children use Wikipedia. For one thing, how do we know that's true? For another, as has been pointed out repeatedly, even if that's true Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia designed for children. For another, it's up to every parent to monitor what their child is doing online; it's not up to Wikipedia to censor itself because children might access its articles. I simply can't imagine why anyone accessing an article entitled "Penis" would be offended by a non-erotic photographic representation of that organ. I realize that the penis image is not the only one we're talking about here, but doesn't Wikipedia policy say that if information is relevant to an article it's better to have it in that article, and that the fewer times a user has to "click" to find the information they're seeking the better? This whole thing mirrors the questions about censoring certain words. I'm against both. I would support an option for signed-in users to have a text-only version that displayed no images at all, but I'm against any sort of rating system. Exploding Boy 12:17, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Eloquence and EB. If parents don't want their children to see something, it's up to them to supervise. As a parent, I have no problem whatsoever with my children looking at an encyclopedia article on penises that contain photos, and I suspect that most parents have a similar attitude. There are things I don't want them to do on the net such as talking to strangers in chat rooms. I consider it my job to make sure my children don’t do it. theresa knott 12:29, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm not talking about children. Nor am I talking about censoring. I'm talking about adding content in a way people will accept. We have a problem when articles like vulva cannot be correctly illustrated. What about female circumcision, or genital mutilation - Eloquence do you really believe that people would click on those links expecting to find photographs clearly illustrating the results of those practices? Your argument that people shouldn't click on a link unless they're willing to see a photograph of the subject at hand is nonsense, many people would expect diagrams and no photographs on articles about anatomy, and there to be no illustration at all for many articles on sexual practices, birth, death, torture, and the like. I'm not suggesting that all photographs of anything remotely sensitive be ghettoised, but that in cases where most people find certain encyclopedic illustrations inappropriate to put directly into a article, they can still be presented. fabiform | talk 14:02, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Just to clarify my position, I never said "censoring" or "rating" (describing something is not rating afaik and rating the semantics of a photo is quite complicated). And I had in mind something different from the "penis" article when writing about this (although that was the starter of this thread). Theresa Knott is on the other hand absolutely right concerning children and parents (it is not the job of WP to look after them -the children, I mean :)).
Maybe the clitoris article option is a good compromise, although not necessarily. Pfortuny 13:53, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that the solution on that page is less than adequate because it assumes that any photo of human genitalia is potentially offensive. The photo in question has a warning ("warning: This photograph may be considered offensive by some viewers"), and apparently it kept getting deleted from its original location ("It used to reside at Image:Clitoris.jpg, but it kept getting deleted from there... "). Exploding Boy 14:07, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

To play devils advocate - any picture of human genitalia is potentially offensive to at least some people. I don't know if we will ever find a solution to this problem. theresa knott 14:21, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Setting what is "offensive" to whom aside for a moment, perhaps we can agree that photos carry a different, more emotional content than facts, and that it can be difficult to get to the factual detail of the text with a strong photo (in any sense) sharing visual space. To put it another way: the argument that children might be using Wikipedia and must therefore be "protected" is perhaps spurious, but I think we should be trying for a result that can be used, say, in a public library. Mixing up content that is acceptable in such a context (factual text information, diagrams) with content that clearly isn't or is likely to cause problems for both the Wikipedia and the user (explicit photos) means that the former won't be used to its best advantage because of the latter. I favor the link-to-seperate-page-for-image solution; note that this approach is in no way censorship, but simply an editorial decision of the type made by everyone here all the time. Jgm 15:50, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


I don't like that solution either, it seems more "ooh look a naughty picture" than a link to a wikipedia page simply called something like "photographs of the clitoris". Plus there's no commentary - where's the description of the image, the discussion of what's visible externally v. its real size, etc? There's not caption whatsoever to describe exactly what the picture shows. It feels divorced from the article to me, and not that useful unless you already know all about female anatomy. fabiform | talk 14:27, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just a quick note, in case I don't get another chance to add to this debate, to say that I agree with the idea of making seperate images of... pages - I especially agree with Jgm's point about the text thereby becoming more useful. Now, as for when we use this approach, I suggest we don't go overboard, but just create a seperate page if we have a reasonable amount of images and related information that would otherwise greatly reduce the audience of the article in question (for any of the reasons people have already suggested). - IMSoP 16:47, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not to sound like an asshole, but maybe the people who find a simple photograph of a penis so terribly offensive are better off staying away from Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but if someone is really going to be irrevocably damaged by looking at a pictorial representation of male genitalia, they have a WHOLE LOT of baggage and other issues that Wikipedia can (and should) do NOTHING about. So maybe we should just leave the photo there with the full knowledge that it may well drive some people away through their terrible offense and say good riddance. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:58, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
Just to reiterate what many people have said already: We're not just talking about penises any more. (It's not often you get to say that!) Some of the things discussed are far more sensitive (Oh dear, bad choice of words :-/ Never mind, you know what I mean.) - IMSoP 18:16, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Here's the problem, just because we're not JUST talking about penises anymore doesn't mean that we're not still including them in the overall discussion. My point is that maybe the people who are "offended" by these images really ought to take their ball and go home. I'm sorry that some people take offense to these images, but there's nothing that can be done about that (except possibly those people taking their heads out of their asses). I'm fine with people being disturbed or upset by certain images. I'm even fine with them being embarrassed or ashamed of the fact that they find certain images tittilating. But you know what? I have zero patience for people who are OFFENDED by them. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:25, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if people found the pictures on penis titilating. :) I'm not sure how helpful it is to throw your hands in the air and say you have no patience with other users in a given situation though. I don't find the pictures on penis to be offensive, and I don't suppose most users do, although the erect penis shot is one which couldn't be broadcast on television where I live (i.e. there is a taboo = some people would be offended by it). Frankly, I don't believe that there are no images we might wish to illustrate an article with which could never offend you. So perhaps you could better appreciate what I'm talking about if you think of pictures of death or torture or whatever your particular limit is, and imagine how we could include such images in wikipedia sensibly. fabiform | talk 18:40, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if there weren't at least a few people who find some of the pictures on Wikipedia titilating (for example, the picture on Bikini), even if not the penis images. I'm not throwing my hands up in the air, I'm taking a stand. I'm saying "no" to catering to the whims of nutzoids. As far as finding images which we might use to illustrate articles... I doubt you would find any which would OFFEND me. I might be disturbed by some of them. Some of them might make me uncomfortable and I might wish to avoid viewing them... but I'm not going to be offended by them. Here's the problem. I understand that some people don't want to see certain things. That's great, there are certain things that I don't want to see either. But I'm not about to say that my preferences should dictate how others are allowed to access information. If I don't want to see something, I won't look at it. If I accidently stumble across it, oh well, I'll survive. I am NOT going to blame Wikipedia if an article on torture has a picture of torture. That would be moronic... as in the action of a moron. What pisses me off to no end, and I think that this is reasonable, is people who get all in a huff and all pissy about these sorts of things. "Oh dear me! Oh, how could you have that image! Oh lordy lord, saints preserve us!" Forgive the hyperbole, but people who go around being OFFENDED by things need to lighten up. I'd be perfectly happy shipping most of the to Antartica or a moon colony, but hey, no one asks my opinion on these things when they're making policy. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:13, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Look, we've been through this a million times before. What we can all agree on, I think, is to put images which would be considered offensive by most Wikipedia readers on separate pages. That, to me, does not include a tasteful picture of a corpse (such as Gunther von Hagens' Body Worlds exhibits), but it would include the kind of stuff you find on rotten.com. It certainly wouldn't include pictures of a penis or a vagina.

Furthermore, we are bound by United States law not to include in an unrestricted area certain images which would be considered pornographic/obscene under state jurisdictions, particularly the state of Florida where the Wikimedia Foundation resides.--Eloquence* 19:21, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Well, what we can all agree is that the above paragraph is not definitive, I hope. Discussing matters is a right in an open society, isn't it? And trying to find a solution which best fits everyone without assuming that past solutions are eternal.Pfortuny 20:03, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It should be eternal unless there is a reason to change it. Allowing all but the most offensive pictures in articles is the only compromise we have been able to agree on in the past, and having this discussion again is unlikely to lead to any better results. In fact, the only possible outcome that you can realistically hope for is that the anti-censorship side will get tired of arguing with you and your side will be able to push their way through. I doubt that this is what you want. You will not be able to change the minds of people on something that touches their deepest feelings and convictions.
So unless you have a suggestion for a new way to deal with this problem (such as the rating system idea, which was quickly rejected), or have some fantastic new argument for dealing with it in a method which has already been discussed, we are wasting our time. As much fun as it may be to talk about naughty pictures, especially for people who would normally find this difficult to justify, we are here to build an encyclopedia, and wasting our time on this issue every 3 months is not going to help us do that.--Eloquence* 20:25, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, come on, man! Nobody asked you to waste your time. I never tried to change anyone's mind, and I never tried to prevent anyone from building an encyclopedia, etc... Like you, I do not like wasting my timePfortuny 12:16, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Userspace policy?

In reading the discussion about User:I am sexy and her (mis(s))use of Wikipedia, I found someone there writing "Sometimes you create a rule by breaking it." I don't think we need a constitution, and I don't think we should create to much rules before we need them, but maybe we should discuss about a policy for userspace usage. Are there things we don't allow/we encourage on userspace, and if so, which ones? -- till we *) 09:23, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:User page and its talk, and consider joining in the discussion there. Andrewa 11:43, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also see the discussion at Wikipedia:Possible abuse of User namespace. Mkweise 11:58, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Do we have Wikipedia:User page in our standard newbie welcome message? -- till we *) 12:03, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is such a message, is there? There are several suggested texts, as used by several different people, I forget where these are now. But I'll certainly include it, and I'd recommend others do too. Andrewa 14:06, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There's one at Wikipedia:Standard user greeting. Angela. 14:21, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm, yes, that's the page I was thinking of, thank you. And I think it's good that there's no standard, to keep it personal. If we wanted to send the same greeting to everyone, we could easily do that, but it's not the same. Andrewa 23:12, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tutorial

The welcoming committee has put together a tutorial for new users, so that people won't have to RTFM when they first get here. It's now ready to go live. Comments, corrections, or edits to the tutorial are welcome. If you want to add anything, just remember that we're trying to keep it short and easilly usable. Isomorphic 21:06, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It looks awesome! I'm learning quite a bit from it myself. Recommended for old hands too, for
  • filling in gaps in your knowledge
  • understanding better what's going on
  • links to reference pages which you may have read but can never remember exactly where
  • fun
  • and of course you may be able to improve it...
...but I urge caution in editing it, it's pretty polished already IMO. Comments on talk pages might be a better idea, and let the team that wrote it consider these suggestions. And well done to the team! Andrewa 23:34, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well there's a bit of a blunder on page 4External links (renamed) about external links. [http://www.google.com] displays as [4] not http://www.google.com (I'll leave it to the team to fix, though). Aside from that, it's pretty good :). - Lee (talk) 23:45, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Noticed that at about the same time you did. Corrected now. Thanks! Isomorphic 00:06, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I translated it as de:Wikipedia:Tutorial (not page 7, because to search for the right links is a work of aeons). -- till we *) 01:54, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The welcoming committee and its/theirs helpers is/are to be praised for its/theirs (as you like it) work! Pfortuny 09:29, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Novel Synopses

General comment here: is it really necessary for article writers to detail every event in the entire plot? (See my edits to Dune.) I think it not only makes the article too long and unwieldy, it also opens the door to more errors, inconsistencies, etc. A synopsis is just that — a brief summary to lay out the essential theme, plot, idea of the book, so that a reader has some notion what it's about. Not what happens at every turn. Wiki articles shouldn't be book reports. OK, off my soapbox now. User:Alcarillo

I try to lead through it without putting in every detail. If a scene is not essential to the plot, then out it goes, but all of the major events should be outlined. - Woodrow, Emperor of the United States 23:04, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
For an egregious abuse of synopsis see The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:16, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)


The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was no more egregious than the one I chopped for Dune (novel) -- at least the WWoO was fairly well written (can't vouch for the accuracy not having read the book). -- User:Alcarillo
Not every event as to reading the Wp synopsis instead of the book/movie, but I think it should give an extensive idea of all of the themes, issues, and characters' stories in the work. But of course there is reason not to have it blow out of control... Dysprosia 10:05, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I dunno. The Dune (novel) entry left me wanting more. It's been many years since I read it and it didn't refresh my memory at all about what happens later in the book among the Fremen. -- Decumanus | Talk 14:08, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Given that some (series of) novels have whole sets of pages devoted to them (see dozens of articles on Tolkien's Middleearth), I don't think we need to worry about excessive detail on a single page. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:11, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Disambigging question

If an article says something like "in the film version of The Wizard of Oz", should the link be disambigged to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz or The Wizard of Oz (1939 movie)? The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is technically what the article is talking about, but most users would probably want The Wizard of Oz (1939 movie). Eurleif 01:17, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

  • Or leave it as it is and let readers choose which article they prefer to pursue... Formerly the article about the book was on The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, and all links to The Wizard of Oz lead to the movie article. Seeing as the title of the book has also been shortened in most editions since 1913, and that several wiki links seemed to be referring to the book but sending to the movie page, I thought it necessary to disambig. I may not have done this in the optimal way, though right now I can't think of a better way to disambiguate. --Woggly 13:02, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Redirection messages

I think we should add optional custom redirection messages. So, for example, instead of just seeing "Redirected from Dallas" you would see "Dallas, Texas is commonly referred to as Dallas. For other uses see Dallas (disambiguation)." In fact, I've gone ahead and written the code to do so. You can test it out at http://www.mcfly.org/wik/Dallas . It's only 9 lines of code. Here's the diff (I've since added a few additions on McFly, such as italicizing the message, and automatically adding in the &redirect=no to the circular link, but looking at this diff should give you the idea). anthony (see warning)

I disagree. I often make redirects for common spelling errors or alternative spellings. This may make things very confusing. For example, saying that "NATO is commonly referred to as Nato" makes little sense to me. Also, in this example there are multiple redirects (i.e. North Atlantic Treaty Organisation). Are you Anthony DiPierro? (forgot to sign)-- chris_73 00:03, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The message can be changed depending on the situation. For nato, the standard (redirected from Nato) might be appropriate. For mispelling, you might want to use "Misspelling is commonly misspelled mispelling." Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough. The idea is that you can put any message in there, by simply editing the redirect. The default is the standard. See http://www.mcfly.org/wik/nato http://www.mcfly.org/wik/North_Atlantic_Treaty_Organisation http://www.mcfly.org/wik/North_Atlantic_Treaty_Organization and http://www.mcfly.org/wik/mispelling . anthony (see warning) 01:28, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Very interesting, but at the moment it would appear to be that the link to the redirect has to be the first word after "#REDIRECT". This could make for some odd grammar. Best, if possible (I've never really dealt with the Wikipedia code), to have the costume redirect message a line below the "#REDIRECT [[something]]". I gather (from Wikipedia:Redirect, obviously) that at the moment one can freely enter an explanation for the redirect at this point - never seen by the user but seen by the wiki editor - but have rarely seen this used in practice (a selection of examples for the use of this can be found at [5]). Other than that, this is an interesting idea, that can greatly contribute to the encyclopedia. Or it could make things a lot more complicated. It should be given a chance, though. (Especially as reverting to the previous version shouldn't be too complicated.) -- Itai 03:03, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Changing the order would be possible, and I thought about this, but it would no longer be backward compatible, at least not with the trivial implementation. I'll try to think about some way to do this. Maybe with some additional syntax, but that would make things somewhat unnecessarily complicated. Looking below, this could probably be done using a pipe. anthony (see warning) 10:07, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I agree. I like it. Something similar to this has been discussed many times, but I like this implementation than the idea as it has previously been discussed. I think the original idea was to change the syntax so one can use #mispelling or #alternative or #deprecated instead of #redirect, thus changing the end message appropriately. Anthony's system allows for more flexibility and is probably easier to use. Tuf-Kat 03:51, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)
If the message can be adjusted flexible according to the needs, then I have no problem with it (although it is not a high priority for me). For example a syntax like Redirect[[NATO|Redirected from incorrect capitalization '''[[Nato]]''']] may be useful. Note: The comments after the redirect mentioned by Itai do not show on the target page. -- chris_73 08:00, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, with some tweaks, this might work. I'll try it later today. anthony (see warning) 10:07, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I tried "/^#redirect.*(\\[\\[($m[1])(\\|(.+))?\\]\\])(.+)$/i" and a few other minor tweaks, and now you can rephrase it the other way around if you want, using a pipe like "#Redirect [[NATO|Redirected]] from incorrect capitalization [[Nato]]". Should still be backward compatible. http://www.mcfly.org/wik/nato Comments? anthony (see warning) 10:22, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think this idea opens many possibilities, as I generally think redirs and disambigs are very ugly. Suppose we put an article that is today naturally at an un-paranthesed spot, like Ireland at Ireland (country) instead. This will allow us to put any disambig in the Redir message from Ireland -> Ireland (country), and articles linking to Ireland can link directly, and the user does not have to see the disambiguation. ✏ Sverdrup 10:17, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is another possibility, but there would have to be some way to make the part in parentheses not display. Never displaying that part would probably be a problem, since I assume some things actually have parentheses in their names. Only displaying it when linked directly would discourage people from linking to the disambiguated page, which is what we want. Maybe a __SupressDisambig__ similar to the __NoTOC__ message would work? anthony (see warning) 15:37, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Probably we have to develop something quite a bit more complicated than your proposal (but this is the trial of the idea, making it possible, gj), but I hope it will be easy to use. We'll need a way to on a redir page, (lets pick Enigma, a real example this time) put a disambig message there that will be shown instead of the current redir message. I propose putting text like
This article relates to the Enigma machine in cryptography. For other uses of Enigma, see Enigma (disambiguation).
Below the #redir instruction in Engima, and when the redirect is made, it will display much like it does now (on Enigma machine), with (redirected from Enigma or something in small where the redir message is now. When directly linked to Enigma machine, nothing will show. When a normal (non-disambig) redir is made, the standard redir message will simply show. (I propose to enclose it in < small> or something. I hope this idea is caught by the right people. ✏ Sverdrup 20:07, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Just a note that this is no longer a valid example due to the move of the Enigma pages. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:13, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

How to transwiki?

I seem to be doing something wrong moving pages to wiktionary, because when I complete a move to transwiki:Wiktionary, it just stays there as though there were nothing "special" about that move target. What am I doing wrong? Mkweise 02:32, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It should be Transwiki:page title, not Transwiki:wiktionary. Also, it should be on the wiktionary: site, not on Wikipedia. Have you read m:transwiki or was it unclear even after seeing that? Once moving it to wiktionary (via cut and paste until 1.3 is released), you should log it at transwiki and wiktionary:transwiki. Angela. 07:32, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I had read m:transwiki but assumed that was outdated info since it said transfers must be done manually but I had ready elsewhere that a seamless transwiki system was in place. I guess it's easiest to just wait for v1.3; after all, dicdef articles in Wikipedia don't really hurt anyone. Mkweise 17:52, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

'Poetic license' for images?

Is there any kind of policy on the relevance of images used on articles? For example, on the page Volterra-Lotka equations, also known as the predator-prey equations, I would like to add a picture of a predator and a prey in action (assuming I can find one). The article is not strictly about predator and prey interactions, but it is the most common interpretation of the equations' dynamics. Is this kind of visual intepretation OK? Similarly for the page on excitable media, a picture of, say, a Mexican wave (an example of an excitable medium) would spruce it up a little. I think that such images could make mathematical articles less dry, and more welcoming than simply a bunch of equations for someone not already interested in the topic. Any thoughts? Chopchopwhitey 08:12, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No policy, this is still an area where you can simply use your own judgement. I personally don't think that adding a picture of a lion chasing a springbok would add much to that particular article... but if you tihnk otherwise... prove me wrong. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:16, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't know. I think it may detract a little from an appearance of professionalism. Perhaps if they're done right and tastefully, they could work well. One must identify what our readership is - whether they're users who are expecting a reference source, or users coming to the wp in order to learn more, in order to move a bit forward on the matter, perhaps... Dysprosia 08:20, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think it's a definite no. A picture of a pair of animals doesn't fit an article on maths, not even to lighten up the page. Apart from a curve or surface or graph or a mathematicians photo, I don't see how maths articles could be illustrated.
Adrian Pingstone 13:11, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Not even a conch shell or the Parthenon in Golden ratio? - jredmond 14:30, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Or a fern in fractal, a pinecone in spiral, a hanging chain in catenary, a stop-motion photograph of a thrown ball in parabola, a turbulent stream in chaos? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:10, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes, those are along the lines of what I was thinking. Personally, even as a big fan of maths myself, it is not always particularly inspiring to see a page solely full of equations. A link to something in the natural world can often pique one's interest a little more. But, I can understand, maybe this is not under the remit of an encyclopaedia. Chopchopwhitey 15:57, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Seems to me the most appropriate "illustration" would be an example of a graph of the populations of a real predator-prey system that approximately fits the model. I seem to recall that there's a textbook example that involves, um, the lynx and the snowshoe hare? Given such a graph, I don't think it would be unreasonable to tart it up a little bit with small, iconic pictures of a lynx and a snowshoe hare.
In encyclopedia articles, as in computer user interfaces, I do think that pictures should be visual explanations of concepts, not just puns (or the mechanical conversion of a word into a picture). A random picture of a particular predator and prey does not illustrate the concept that the article discusses. Dpbsmith 16:16, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
P. S. See http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/predation/predation.html for the data I had in mind—including a photo of a lynx chasing a snowshoe hare! Dpbsmith 16:21, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think there's definitely room for illustrative improvement on math articles, as long as the illustrations help to explain the topic or are directly related to the subject somehow. The Volterra-Lotka equations don't really describe how a fox gets its paws on a rabbit; it's about the populations in general, and should be illustrated with examples that help to explain that concept. The fractal, spiral, and Golden ratio examples above are much more appropriate---they are real-world occurrences of abstract math concepts. Perhaps the prey-predator equations would benefit from comparison with a chart or graph of real-world prey-predator populations? "Here's what the equations predict, and here's some empirical observation." That'd help give the reader a grasp on why the equations are significant. -- Wapcaplet 16:23, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Interesting debate. I recently picked up a history book I had as achild with virutally every illustration being made in this way. Although I now understand and appreciate the metaphor or pun used in each case, I found them off putting as a child. Even The way that adults picture the world and asscoiate words is very diverse and I think that all reference sources should be more literal than latereal. Dainamo 11:26, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I would agree now that the best use of pictures on Wikipedia is when they directly illustrate a concept in the article. Chopchopwhitey 10:25, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WikiTrans access

Likely an old question, but I would like to be able to seamlessly link content from Wikipedia to Wikibooks/ Wiktionary/ Wikever. Is there a simple technique, or do I have to http code them. Also, are there easy links to the other Wiki pages, and if so, where are they located? Thanks, anyone. Denni 03:54, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)

I can't find a page explaining these, though there was a tip of the day related to interwiki links. Wikibooks and Wiktionary can be linked to via shortcuts like [[wikibooks:page title]] and [[wiktionary:page title]]. There isn't a shortcut for wikisource yet. Angela. 07:40, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
How about Wikiquotes?कुक्कुरोवाच
No, there doesn't seem to be one for Wikiquote yet either. Angela. 13:57, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Library Classification Links

I'm adding information about authors' library classifications to their pages, from the LCC, and from the Dewey where I can find it. I'm looking for some advice as to formatting and possible automation. Is there any way to make a custom little bit so that I can type


Funky!Syntax![LCC PS 3515.E288 Dewey 813.54]


(which isn't even any kind of syntax; I'm just looking for a way to get parameterized boilerplate) and have it show up as


The fictional works of Robert A. Heinlein are classified under Library of Congress PS3515.E288, or under Dewey 813.54.


To be honest, I'm not even sure what the best way of doing this is. (I'm just looking to classify fiction right now, so authors published in multiple areas shouldn't be a problem.) Maybe copy/pasting the relevant text is better. But what's the best text to use? Suggestions?


I'm planning on doing this for a long list of authors; I'd like to not have to go back and fix them after the fact.


Also, I'm putting this at the top of the "Bibliography" section for now; I don't think it deserves its own section. Thoughts?


Grendelkhan 17:36, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)

Excellent! MediaWiki 1.3 [6] will apparently support this, via key-value pairs in templates. Hopefully that's why they're going to be offline for a bit... Grendelkhan 16:09, 2004 Apr 18 (UTC)
It's a fine project to do, if you're motivated. Call numbers do change with different editions of the LCC and DDC, and though the Literature sections haven't changed in several decades, who knows when they might adjust the numbers. You might mention that most public libraries shelve fiction in a separate section, alphabetically by the author's last name, instead of using 813 (American literature) and 823 (British literature). GUllman 00:56, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How long do Wikipedians last?

I was looking at Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_in_order_of_arrival and it seems many of the earliest contributors, based on the last update of their user page, have stopped (or heavily reduced) their contributions.

Do Wikipedians 'burn-out'? What is the churn-rate? How long does an average contributor stay active and how much do they add? 81.101.165.185 22:29, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedians do indeed burn out. The rate varies from person to person. Some people tend to get in a lot of conflicts, and burn out very quickly. Others fly under the radar and never really accumulate any wikistress. Personally, I avoid burnout by picking a few tasks I find rewarding and staying out of fights (my only big blow up was with User:Plautus satire, who was banned by the arbitration committee). I can't quantify it, but I can say that one long-time contributors can add *A LOT* to the project in the time he is here. →Raul654 22:41, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
I just try to find topics I myself like or am interested in, mainly boxing and aviation topics. That way I keep it interesting for me without burning out.

Antonio Attention Getter Martin

Many Wikipedians ultimately leave the project because they no longer have the free time necessary to contribute. Jobs, spouses, children, all tend to conflict. UninvitedCompany 18:49, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Units of measurement

Why not use metric units of measurement ( the international norm) rather than the idiosyncratic system still in use in the USA? I find it very time consuming converting inches , degrees fahrenheit and so on. Martin Pierard Melbourne Australia

I agree that metric should be included in every mention of measurement. There's a number of us Americans who are including both American and metric units in our work. It's a simple thing to use my calculator and convert everything. For example, see Ohio public lands. jaknouse 06:31, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, we want people to understand the articles we write, so for the time being we're going to have to use both systems since there are people who have no knowledge (or instinctive understanding) of metric, and others who have no understanding of imperial. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect usage, not try to force change. Personally, I find http://www.onlineconversion.com very handy. fabiform | talk 17:25, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Google is pretty handy for it. See here for an example. →Raul654 17:28, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
This is not seen as an issue where it is possible or desirable to enforce uniformity. People in the United States, reading articles about things in the United States, written by editors living in the United States feel that it is natural and comfortable to use U. S. customary units. International unit conversions should always be provided in such cases, but (cough) a lot of us forget to do it. This is definitely an area where, if you do calculate the conversion yourself, you would be doing everyone a favor by adding the conversion to the article. It should be an addition, though; to remove a U. S. Customary unit from a page on a U. S. topic would be perceived as annoying and an assertion of a non-neutral point of view.
(Speaking for myself, I'd add what should be added should be "translations" rather than "conversions," meaning that in an article that is not scientific or technical in nature in general it should be translated to the most culturally equivalent unit. That is, "pounds" used as a unit of weight should be converted to "kilograms," not "newtons;" "acres" to "hectares," not km2. That is my expression of my personal point of view and others may well disagree).
I fully agree with all that has been said. Another question would be whether to provide imperial conversions for information about metric countries. I don't think this would be as needed as the reverse, considering that metric is the world standard and imperial the minority exception. I have no set idea about it; perhaps the main numbers should be dubbed in imperial for the convenience of Americans and Canadians. David.Monniaux 06:55, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Another minor issue is that such a translation should try not to suggest a higher decree of precision, i.e. "Dr. Atkins weighed 18 stones at death" should become "18 stones (over 110 kg)," not "18 stones (114.3 kg)". Dpbsmith 11:58, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, I for one think that everything you say there is extremely sound, and we should adopt it as policy. I also think that what you call a minor point can be generalised into a very important one: don't try to be accurate where accuracy isn't known. Often, measurements are given to the nearest "round number", and are intended as a ball-park figure only; so "18 stone" might as well be labelled "(110 kg)", even though this is not technically the same quantity. Obviously, this requires a bit of judgement on the part of the editor, to determine the accuracy originally intended - "6 feet", can be considered a round number in that it is the height of a fairly tall human male...
I'm thinking also that this applies equally to currency conversions, where statements like "5 million Altairian Dollars" crop up frequently, and might be "translated" to US Dollars via a highly fluctuating exchange rate. In such cases, precise conversions would be doubly inaccurate, since they would imply that both the original figure and the exchange rate had that level of precision. - IMSoP 12:18, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Units of measurement

-> Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (section)

Units of measurement

-> Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

PNGcompress

Hi,

I see ofter users who upload a big PNG while it can be a less big PNG because a lot of programs actually write too big PNGs. So: much programs don't compress their PNGs good. Because I want to make tools to compress PNGs (without any quality loss i mean) available for anyone, i made a website ( http://wilinckx.homelinux.org/pngcompress/ ) where you can compress PNGs to get a more little PNG. I hope it's usefull for when you want to upload a PNG but thinks it's a bit too big :) Ow btw, it's running on a 7years old computer here, so be patient when loading a page. If you try compressing something, try with a little file first (a 100x100 pix file is already 2.5 minutes calculation time). PS: i hope this is the right place to say this, if not: feel feel free to move it. Wilinckx 09:32, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

or if people would like to use their own cpu cycles instead of draining yours, they can download pngcrush from http://pmt.sourceforge.net/pngcrush/ - it's quite fast: Took about 10 seconds to do a directory of 50 thumbnail images on a 1.4GHz PC.
Optipng is generally better than pngcrush and usually significantly faster. Windows users can use pngout after optipng to further improve the results but pngout is only available for Windows and is comparatively slow. Note that one online document for pngout says that what is often the most important tuning parameter (the block size) is unimportant. I use optipng followed by pngout with about 20 variations of filter and block size and select the smallest pngout result. Jamesday 19:21, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Uncompressed files are always preferable because in those, there is no risk of patent issues. As long as files are compressed or modified in any way, it can be subject to future troubles. -- Taku 19:15, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Using uncompressed files won't protect you from patent infringement lawsuits. It's best to use a file format that infringes no known patents. Like PNG. An individual PNG implementation in code is capable of infringing a few known patents, but all PNG implementations deliberately avoid doing so. -- Cyrius|&#9998 16:31, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

GFDL Images Used in Software/Web Apps

I came across Image:BlankMap-World.png while looking for a decent "free" world map for a web project I have in mind. Seeing that the license for this image is the GFDL, I was hoping someone would explain how I comply if I use the image in software.

My thought was to use this map and change the colors of various countries based on data in my database. Then I would output the colored map on my website.

How does the GFDL apply to this situation? Do I just need to make the modified maps downloadable (they will be since they'll be images linked by the HTML)? Or does the software have to use the GPL or something? (I may very well use the GPL for my software anyway, but I want to understand the implications before I bother using the image).

Thanks! --Boone 03:09, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

It means you can modify them anyway you like, using the tools you like, but if you release it in a way at all, it has to be released under the GFDL (ie. on your website you would have to say underneath "These maps are derived from maps available from Wikipedia (link) and are available under the GFDL..." Hope that helps. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:47, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Infoboxes

If someone wants to redesign an Infobox, shouldn't they take it up in the appropriate WikiProject, not change individual articles (or Wikipedia:Infobox) to match their taste? Or do we actually not have a policy on this? -- Jmabel 00:15, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that once agreed upon (and Wikiproject:Ethnic groups appears to have been agreed upon), WikiProject pages are policy and changes should be discussed there first. Tuf-Kat 03:52, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Zulu / colors

This is a relatively small matter, but it seems to lead to a larger policy question. Avala has changed the colors in the table at Zulu to something which I find very gaudy and which has no relation to the Wikipedia:Infobox agreed upon at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups. (You might want a look at the history and talk page of Zulu.) I certainly don't want an edit war over graphical presentation -- I have far better things to do with my time -- but if someone wants to redesign an Infobox, shouldn't they take it up in the appropriate project, not change individual articles to match their taste? Does anyone have any suggestions for how I should proceed (or, for that matter how Avala should proceed)? -- Jmabel 18:27, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And now I see that Avala has gone and changed the version on Wikipedia:Infobox, completely ignoring the WikiProject. This seems to me to be just plain out of line. -- Jmabel 18:32, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Looks like other people have now reverted in both places, so the specific question is (I hope) resolved, but the broader question remains, and I am going to state it as a separate question in the immediately following section.

Zulu / colors / Infoboxes

-> Wikipedia:Infobox

GFDL Images Used in Software/Web Apps

-> User talk:Boone

PNGcompress

-> Wikipedia:How to keep image file sizes as small as possible

Units of measurement

-> Wikipedia:Measurements Debate

Library Classification Links

-> User talk:Grendelkhan

WikiTrans access

-> User talk:Dwindrim

'Poetic license' for images?

-> wikipedia talk:image use policy

How to transwiki?

-> User talk:Mkweise

Disambigging question

-> Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

Novel Synopses

-> Wikipedia talk:Warn readers about spoilers

Userspace policy?

-> wikipedia:user page, Wikipedia talk:Standard user greeting

Open source compatibility note POV?

Tully-Fisher relation links as a reference to a PowerPoint file whence I found a specific fact (the T ∝ V^4 formula) that I didn't find in my other two sources. Because PPT is proprietary and Wikipedia is open-source / intended to be free and Free to all / has a significant non-Windows readership, I mentioned that the file works in OpenOffice.org. Is this statement POV, or fair notice for those without PowerPoint? --Geoffrey 02:16, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Looks fine to me: IM(NS)HO it's more neutral to mention alternative methods of opening a file. Indeed mentioning the file format at all is an improvement on the usual situation where you click on a link, expecting HTML to pop up quickly, and your browser appears to sulk for ages while it opens some huge file: I'm all in favour of stating the format of an external link whenever it's anything other than HTML (or near equivalent e.g. PHP). --Phil | Talk 06:45, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
Pedantic note: as far as the browser is concerned, PHP is HTML - or, rather, normally is. It's just that it's generated by the server when you ask for it, not stored as a complete file somewhere. And in fact, a PHP file could (I believe) actually generate an image, or even a PowerPoint presentation, theoretically - making it even more important to label the link, as its target may well end .php. - IMSoP 14:31, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
PHP is capable of generating any kind of file. It's just oriented towards producing ASCII text, and formats derived from that (like HTML) -- Cyrius|&#9998 16:17, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
Just mention its type, not how to open it, the reader is not daft. Open Source POV is pushed in some articles around here, and that is tacitly accepted, but it shouldn't be. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 19:24, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Russian spellings

I'm sure we have a page somewhere on the correct rendering of Russian names, but I can't find it. Our current article is called Mikhail Tukhachevsky, but Google says that Mikhail Tukhachevski is the correct spelling by a ratio of 10 to 1. Do we have a policy? Where is it? Adam 04:03, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes - we're supposed to go with what most english speakers call them. However, as the Kiev article demonstrates, not everyone abides by the rules. I think there's going to be a referrendum sooner or later. →Raul654 04:05, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Oops, actually I am wrong, the Google ratio is the other way around. But I still want to know, do we write Vasili or Vassily or Vasily? Semen or Semyen or Semyon? Konev or Koniev or Konyev or Kon'ev? The dispute over Kiev is different, it involves alternative Russian and Ukrainian spellings. Adam 04:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, one issue is that Russian passports used to (and possibly still do) carry translitterations following French usage, not English usage. Thus, Sergey is rendered as Serguei on those passports. David.Monniaux 07:14, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK well no-one seems to what out policy is, so I will do as I please. Adam 07:29, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Does it have any fixed transcription scheme for russian names into english? I know it has one standard one for Russian to German, but not sure if there is just one standard for english. andy 07:45, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If there was a fixed scheme for Russian-English transcription, I wouldn't have had to ask my original question, now would I? There are several schemes. My question is, has Wikpwedia adopted one of them? If so, which one? Does anyone know? Adam 07:55, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is the nearest I have got to an answer (section 3.1 I recall). Pfortuny 16:42, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, but that doesn't really help. It is an argument about the presentation of names, rather than their spelling. It doesn't help me for example in deciding between Yuri and Yury and Yurii, all of which are widely used. The record so far is Marshal Semyon Budyonny, who is also spelled Budenny, Budennii, Budyenni, Budyenny, Budyennii and Budyonni. Adam 00:34, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK well since no-one is able to advise me I am going to follow what seems to me the most sensible rule. In the name Будённый, I am going render ё as /yo/ rather than /e/ or /ye/, since that's how it's pronounced, and I'm going to render -ый as /y/ since /ii/ although orthographically correct looks very pedantic. Thus it become /Budyonny/. I also don't see why Russian biographical articles need to use the patronym in the article title, since that is not the way Russians are referred to in English. This means I will be moving some articles. If anyone wants to argue with me they are welcome. Adam 05:53, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

whats In whats Out

I've created a new page at What's in, what's out that might be of interest, and possibly even of help, in dealing with the inevitable questions of where the boundary lies as to what is included in Wikipedia. Comments and contributions welcome. Andrewa 02:09, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to have many alternate pages telling you what should be included or shouldnt be included in Wikipedia. Unless you want to make it possible to prove that every item simultaneously can be and cant be included based on a certain page. What is wrong with Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not? Bensaccount 20:51, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with what Wikipedia is not, this is to complement it. As the page itself says, it's not a policy page, rather it's an expression of opinions, a bit like VfD itself in some ways but without any "teeth" at all. And as such it doesn't prove anything, or seek to.
So if you don't like it, just ignore it, and it shouldn't get in your way. And if nobody likes it, it will just die, like some other suggestions I've made! But I'm hopeful that some people will find it helpful.
On the other hand, if it grows as I hope it will gather a lot of helpful information in one place, particularly links to the relevant policy pages... including what Wikipedia is not. Andrewa 06:01, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Integrity of Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia

While I was voting for Wikipedia under the category of community, I ran accross a comment that suggested Wikipedia is not a community and that the encyclopedia was losing its integrity as a pedia because members were making some sort social hierarchy which resulted in the deletion and reverting of articles on the basis of who the it instead of the accuracy of the article. Should these accusations be true, then the goal of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia has be compromised. What I want to know is, are these supposed deletions and revertions on the basis of the writer of an article indeed occuring?

If you want to veiw the comment on the Webby Awards website, go there, log in and look under "community" for comments, it will be listed as comment number 6.

YanA 18:43 22Apr04 (UTC)


Strictly speaking, those accusations are true, although they are a bit misleading. For example, User:Michael is hard-banned and on auto-revert. When he attempts to add to the 'pedia in contravention of his ban, he is automatically reverted on sight. This has nothing to do with the content of the specific edit that he attempts to make, it is a general policy formed from his past history of inserting seemingly factually accurate (but actually erroneous) data into a variety of articles. Therefore, both because of the danger of allowing intentionally bogus data into the 'pedia and because of his banned state, he is automatically reverted ... because of who made the edit, not because of the content of the edit.
Now, that being stated, that is an extreme and very limited case. Anyone using that as an example of how the Wikipedia process is "broken" or how a social hierarchy is ignoring the content of articles in favor of focusing on individual contributors would be, imho, extremely disingenuous. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:47, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

I confess than if a user has previously made 300 edits denying holocaust I tend to revert his edit without carefully reading his text :-) Ericd 17:48, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have posted a review there which describes Wikipedia from my perspective and attempts to address what jrrt was saying without giving too much credence to charges which are, as Dante rightly notes, disingenuous. After having posted it I worried that my putting my name there would be perceived as a little too proud, but find I can't edit it out to anonymity. I hope my words speak for many here, and if they do not, I hope they will be forgiven as a well-meaning attempt to defend a community which has welcomed me and made me feel as though I have something to offer of worth. Jwrosenzweig 17:51, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Amazingly, AdHominemRevert and AdHominemDelete are actually policy on Wikipedia and some other poorly managed large public wikis, and are applied with amazing regularity both here and on Meta-Wikipedia, but only by certain people - who employ it as a deliberate power grab by the sysop power structure to make it difficult for those who disagree with it, or the GodKing to communicate even the most essential concepts to the end user... suggesting very strongly that political disputes underlie all such reverts/deletes. JRR Trollkien (see warning) 19:25, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Speaking of disingenuous, I forgot to mention that some people also make assertions that are outright lies and border on slander/libel. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:14, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you about outright lying -- one only needs to look at the convenient claim that "egregious vandalism" originated from IP ranges in Halifax (when in fact it was a trolling/political issue). Or such fatuous statements as "no legitimate use" applied to anonymous proxies, when there are whole IP ranges blocked. JRR Trollkien (see warning) 21:20, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The comments at the Webby awards are in the characteristic writing style of 142, a disgruntled former Wikipedian. He believes that there is no such thing as an online community, and that we should avoid the metaphor of websites as physical meeting places. He also believes that trolls should rule wikis [7][8][9] and that the point of view expressed by Wikipedia should be the outcome of conflict between factions [10][11][12]. Since trolls are the best at conflict, contributors who want their views to be represented would have to learn some trolling techniques [13]. Unfortunately some of the best references for this point of view were lost when recyclopedia was "slashdotted" by VfD. -- Tim Starling 01:09, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Another site for public domain images

See http://srufaculty.sru.edu/david.dailey/public/public_domain.htm. RickK.

Editing sections

Why can't anon users edit sections? RickK

I'm guessing the section edit links are disabled by default because they could be confusing. I notice the default skin at the test wiki currently does show them for anons though - not sure whether that's a good thing or a bad thing... IMSoP 23:33, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
We're assuming that most anons are just readers, so they wouldn't want to look at edit links (and this is the way it should be, IMO the new skin shouldn't change this). Dori | Talk 02:39, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

watchlist

Can anyone tell me how i can add many pages at the same time to my watchlist? i want to add all links at List_of_Middle-earth_articles at the same time. Anárion 19:42, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe you can, but there's something as good (or better). Go to that page, and hit "related changes". Bookmark that page, and you have your very own goblin-centric watchlist. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:58, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there any way to get that page to appear in my watchlist?
No, I don't think so. It's one of those anthropic pages that doesn't exist unless you looking right at it :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:13, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What MediaWiki message where

In both of my comments above (yes, I'm mass Pumping here, sorry) I refer to system messages which are probably in the MediaWiki namespace somewhere. However, one can only guess where. Although there are lists of all messages used by the software, there doesn't seem to be any explanation of how they are used by the software. Perhaps some nice developer who knows which is which could add a note somewhere - the top of corresponding MediaWiki talk: pages seems an obvious choice, and the software could even generate these automatically for a new wiki... - IMSoP 21:06, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This really belongs into the MediaWiki documentation. It is currently being worked on on Meta, but will reside in a neat help namespace in the next version of MediaWiki, and be maintained on the respective language Wikipedias. Documentation will begin in earnest as soon as MediaWiki 1.3 goes live.--Eloquence* 00:07, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
No - the English version will still be maintained on Meta. There will be periodic updates to the English Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, and Wikiquote from the Meta version. --mav 21:52, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Public domain photos

What exactly identifies a photo as public domain or not? I need to know because Ive been trying for decades (well, not really but it seems like it) to find non copyrighted photos of, say, Menudo, Marvin Hagler, Wilfredo Gomez, Pilar Montenegro, Lucecita Benitez and countless others.

The photos of airliners I get permission to use I find them easily, I just go to Airliners.net and ask for permission. It has been the other photos that have been hard for me to find permission of.

Thanks, and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, Antonio Bird's nest Martin

AFAIK, an image is only public domain if the person who would otherwise own the copyright says so - so unless you happen upon a rich seem of such things, I think asking permission is the only way to go. Fair use, OTOH, I don't even begin to understand - or not in legal terms, anyway... - IMSoP 21:46, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Live Chat

This would be a nice feature to hash out disputes, or just to talk in real time. TDC 22:58, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

see m:IRC channels -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:12, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Teacher shortages and other difficulties

I'd like to start an article specifically about the troubles teachers face nowadays--from growing teacher shortages to school shootings. But should this be specifically about teachers, as opposed to any other profession? Should this be related to labor issues, or to educational issues, or what? Thanks. Mjklin 23:57, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Start small. Teachers only (well, educators and educational administrators only) and both labor and educational issues. If it grows bigger, it grows bigger. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:08, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Copyrights in other countries

I've noticed in my travels on the web that some countries do not seem to respect copyright (I can't recall which offhand) and, consequently, "legally" pirate movies there. Does the US respect the copyrights of those nations, and furthermore, does Wikipedia? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:38, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know wikipedia respects the copyright of everyone, no matter what country they happen to live in.theresa knott 10:36, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Some countries have not signed up to the Berne Convention (eg Cuba), and thus their copyrights are not internationally recognised. Martin 15:45, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Copyrights in other countries

-> wikipedia talk:copyrights

I've noticed in my travels on the web that some countries do not seem to respect copyright (I can't recall which offhand) and, consequently, "legally" pirate movies there. Does the US respect the copyrights of those nations, and furthermore, does Wikipedia? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:38, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know wikipedia respects the copyright of everyone, no matter what country they happen to live in.theresa knott 10:36, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Some countries have not signed up to the Berne Convention, the Universal Copyright Convention, or the TRIPS Agreement (eg Cuba), and thus their copyrights are not internationally recognised. Assuming that when such countries sign up to such provisions, existing uses will be grandfathered, there would seem to be no problem with Wikipedia ignoring such copyrights. Martin 15:45, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Problem with blocking

I made a range block of 64.107.0.0/22 in response to the Star Trek vandalism on 16th April for a period of 7 days. Today (April 20th) I find user 64.107.1.81 merrily editing Leonard McCoy again. Is something wrong with blocking, or did I get the block wrong? (PS I've blocked the same user for 90 days this time). DJ Clayworth 17:26, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

it seems that 0.0/22 means 0.0 to 0.22 (23 IPs). And now look at the new IP...
That is *not* true. See m:Range blocks. As I read this, blocking 64.107.0.0/22 should have taken out 64.107.0.0 to 64.107.3.255 →Raul654 18:40, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
That's my understanding. Is there somebody who could check to see if this is a bug, or can pass it to the appropriate person? DJ Clayworth 20:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Read wikipedia:bug reports

Teacher shortages and other difficulties

-> Talk:Teacher

Copyrights in other countries

-> wikipedia talk:copyrights

Editing sections

-> Wikipedia talk:Section

Another site for public domain images

-> Wikipedia:Public domain image resources

Public domain photos

-> User talk:AntonioMartin

Integrity of Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia

-> Wikipedia talk:Webby Awards

Sex pages

Archived to wikipedia talk:profanity

whats In whats Out

-> Wikipedia talk:What's in, what's out

Russian spellings

-> Talk:Mikhail Tukhachevsky

Open source compatibility note POV?

-> Talk:Tully-Fisher relation (shouldn't have been asked here)

What MediaWiki message where

-> Wikipedia:Ignored feature requests

Problem with blocking

-> meta:Talk:Range blocks

Curious about Tacoma/ Northwest...

Hi, I am living in Mobile, Al. - My mother and step-father moved me here as a child. And as most people know, Mississippi and Alabama are, as I've heard it said, the poorest states in the U.S. Taking for instance, the average income of a minimum wage job, waitressing , fast food..... would be usually $5.50 here an hour, and most of these people will hire you only part time, something like 5 days a week. But, I am trying my best to get out of the South completely, and thought Tacoma was beautiful! I was looking at the geography of the Pacific Northwest and loved the water and the mountains, what I have read seemed interesting. But, what I am wanting to know is the average income, job economy for here. For instance, I am out on my own now with my fiancee, still finishing school. I would have to do waitressing till then, or something along those lines. I would love to live somewhere as pretty as in the Northwest, but would it be welcoming to us? And, could we make it just as well there? Melissa, Jetamila@aol.com


P.S: My boyfriend can build computers, another reason as to why we thought of moving here, has to take a test still before we do. I am looking for information! thanks :

Content

I have heard some users complaining about some of the unsuitable content articles. Wouldn't it be a good idea to create a msg to be put on the top of the page, just to let people know. Something like:

This article contains adult content.

or whatever. LUDRAMAN | T 21:21, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, we already have a disclaimers link on every page, which links to a content disclaimer. There is no need to add this to articles as well, in the same way that we no longer add the medical disclaimer to medical articles. See also Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer and Wikipedia talk:Profanity. Angela. 21:56, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
a) The normal editing process for pages with such content insures that such pages quickly reach a metastable state governed by community consensus. In other words, whatever is in Wikipedia is already acceptable. If not, someone will change it until it is. Wikipedia is not a treasure-trove of prurient materials. It falls somewhere in the same range as "Our Bodies, Our Selves" or discussions on daytime television talk shows. It is IMHO far less sexualized than Cosmopolitan magazine or the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.
b) If it were easy to everyone to agree on precisely what constitutes "adult content", this might be a harmless idea. Since in fact such issues are contentious, it would probably provoke edit wars and waste a lot of time.
c) Exactly how many pages with adult content have you personally encountered that you were not specifically seeking? Unlike a print encyclopedia, it is not easy to riffle through the pages of Wikipedia and encounter such content.
d) Having seen such a warning, what normal human being would ever be able to resist peeking just to see what content was being warned against? How much "protection" does such a warning provide?
e) Such a mechanism would, of course, make it much easier for prurient souls to locate all the juicy Wikipedia stuff by going to Wikimedia:Adult and clicking on "What links here." Or, for that matter, Googling on "Wikipedia adult content." Whether that is an argument for or against such labelling, I leave to others to determine.
f) Older children and adolescents are exposed, and to some extent seek out, sexual content all the time. Witness the episode in Tom Sawyer where Tom catches Becky looking at a nude plate in the schoolteacher's anatomy textbook. It's all a matter of degree. When I was a kid some of us got a charge of sorts out of looking up words like "intercourse" and "rape" in the dictionary. But it was trivial compared to the calendars I saw in the office areas of the auto repair shop. My own kids got some of their sex education out of "The Whole Earth Catalog." On the Internet, Wikipedia is like the dictionary or the Whole Earth Catalog. The auto repair shop calendars are to be found elsewhere.
I mean, it's just not that big a deal and it's not worth worrying over. Dpbsmith 13:37, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Short-toed in Granada Spain

Hi,

Thanks for your site.

Could you please supply some information on Short-toed eagle breeding & migration habits. I live in Southern España (www.geocities.com/lecringranada/birdlist) and have become very interested in the local Eagle population. The Spanish Imperial has completely disappeared from our area. Over the last 5 years, due to changes in agriculture and hunting, I have seen the decline of Bonelli’s until last year we only recorded one in the valley. However, this seems to have increased the population of both Booted and Short-toed eagles and I would like to know how large a territory each pair will need. I have watched as the Short-toed have flown with snakes and indeed have located snakes which they have dropped in flight , the largest of which was over 5 foot long. Quite often the effort of flight with such weight forces them to rest in open ground giving wonderful observation opportunities. At the end of the last breeding season we watched a family of 4 Short-toed on many muscle building flights before migration. From this I thought (no doubt in error) they had reared 2 chicks. This year we have seen the return of a juvenile before the adults. We were expecting the adults to force it into a new breading area but this has not happened. My question is, did I see the same family grouping last year made up of a new chick, a juvenile from a previous year & the two adults because the text books say they only hatch one egg per year?

Thanking you in anticipation , Ken Sumner.

Mr Peepers

Why does Mr. Peepers redirect to Krusty the Klown? Mr. Peepers was a 50's sitcom and as far as I know has nothing to do with the Simpsons character. MK 03:57, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • It now more pertinently redirects to Wally Cox. - Nunh-huh 07:41, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

New File upload page

Not having "To view or search previously uploaded images, go to the list of uploaded images." is inconvenient, and, unless it no longer overwrites files silently, removing the warning about that seems undesirable. Niteowlneils 01:52, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've added that link. Futher suggestions can be made at MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext. Angela. 07:34, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

the beltway murders.

i worked as an xtra in the movie, see photograph 6 of 32. I am the guy in the plaid shirt and black jacket. I live in Canada and would love to obtain a copy of the movie. can you please help me. my email is davidwilliams@telus.net thank you

KUMARA Wanted

Does anyone know where I could obtain the purple variety of KUMARA?

Respond directly to me at: bluelytes@yahoo.com Thank you.


Regards; bluelytes@yahoo.com

Wik's increasingly crackpot behaviour

This user's abuse of community standards appears to have finally passed into the realm of the twilight zone. Over recent days he/she has:

1. Published on his/her user page a public incitement to other users to implement wholesale reversion of targeted articles on his/her behalf as a way of circumventing daily reversion limits. This is nothing less than orchestrated vandalism by proxy.

2. Published on his/her user page a hit list of users "who need to be banned" - ie, anyone who has had the temerity to challenge Wik's incessant POV-pushing and abuse of community standards and procedures.

3. Published on his/her user page a hit list of "unsuitable sysops" - ie, anyone who has had the temerity to challenge Wik's incessant POV-pushing and abuse of community standards and procedures.

Is there an established procedure for users behaving inappropriately to be put on notice?

--Gene_poole 10:29, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Hi, kettle. It's me, Gene Poole, the pot. You're black!" --User:Wik
Wik's trolling is under discussion at RFA again: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik2 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik2/Evidence. Hopefully this time he will get more than just a little slap on the wrist. — Jor (Talk) 10:45, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone actually know whether it's a he or a she?--Gene_poole 10:48, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Personally, I think that as long as Wik's list is in his own userspace and he does not use profanities, there should be no objection to that. Wik, as anybody else, is entitled to his own opinions. Przepla 10:54, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
We should draw the line at personal attacks. Calling someone a nazi or zionist is unacceptable. — Jor (Talk) 12:22, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Not when they are defamatory, and not when they threaten the integrity of Wikipedia and advocate the abuse of its community standards.--Gene_poole 10:57, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oh come on! Threaten the integrity of Wikipedia? I think you are giving Wik far too much status. If Wik wants to "incite" people to revert so what? Nobody will actually do it. Likewise with his "users who should be banned" or "sysops", no one will take the slightest notice. All Wik achieves by publishing this stuff is make himself look foolish. If you don't like what he puts on his user page, there is a very simple solution. Don't read it. theresa knott 11:30, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Wik is trolling. Trolling is against Wikipedia policy. Ergo, Wik is in violation of policy and should be dealt with. — Jor (Talk) 12:22, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oh I noticed it, Theresa, and was rather hurt by it. I seem not to have made the A Team. Alas, my name is not included in the List of Sysops Who Must be Banned. Maybe next week. I live in hope. Tannin
LOL (<pouts> I'm not on either list <stamps foot> 's'not fair!) theresa knott 12:33, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I actually find Wik's user page rather sad; obviously this is a person with some serious issues - however, I also believe principles are important and ought to be maintained. Look at the volume of time, energy and bandwidth Wik's trolling and POV-pushing have caused to be wasted in the the restoration of damaged articles. Remember, this is an individual with a history of POV-pushing, a 10,000 article watchlist and an abusive temperament; clearly Wik thinks (and I use the term loosely) big. If a single crackpot on a crusade can tie up so many resources so easily, imagine the damage two or three could do.--Gene_poole 12:18, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Are we discussing user page or edits here? I feel that he sgould be allowed tp out pretty much whatever he likes on his user page. as for his edits, is he under arbitration at the moment?theresa knott 12:33, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The problem with Wik is that because he is not just a troll but a Polish POV pushing troll, he has strong supporters. — Jor (Talk) 12:22, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps you need to consider your own position here.If he has strong supporters then that in itself should tell you something (BTW I know nothing of you, or your problems with wik but there are usually two sides to every argument)
Isn’t Wik under arbitration now? Can't those discuss pages be used so i don’t have to read all about it every time i check the village pimp? Suggest an admin move this to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik2 or similar. Anárion 12:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Change to Recent Changes (N to !)

I have to say, I am not at all a fan of the "!" replacing "N" to designate new pages. I can't think of what page to complain on, though -- can anyone tell me? The "!" renders very badly for me (Mozilla 1.4.1) and "N" is far more descriptive anyway. Not all new pages are "!" worthy for me, but they are all "N"ew. Perhaps the person who made this change will see my comment and change back? I'd be very surprised if this was community consensus. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 15:32, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That is exactly what I've come here to complain about. At first I thought that ! meant "important" but now I see that it actually means "new". N is far better for that. Please change it back. -- Derek Ross 15:43, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I second the above request: N renders better. Anárion 15:47, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Whenever you see a change on the interface, hop over to Wikipedia:MediaWiki namespace and click the appropriate Changes link to find out what changed. Dori | Talk 15:50, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

That won't do you much good since the page will almost certainly be protected (as it was in this case) and thus not subject to the normal Wikipedia peer review and correction process. -- Derek Ross 16:02, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't like this either. It is less clear. Please count this message as a vote against if a poll is conducted. Mr. Jones 16:58, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

People's What?

At the bottom of the editing-an-article page, there's a link that says: "Vote for Wikipedia at the People's Choice Webby Awards". The Webby Awards actually call it the People's Voice (as can be verified by hitting the link, which points to [14]). Should be a fairly easy change for someone with the right powers. --Etaoin 01:12, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Abusive user

I'm not sure what to do with Deism. I don't really know enough about the article to edit the content beyond obvious copyedits. However, one person, user:Andrew Zito, seems to have taken an intense interest in the article and issues profane abuse on the talk page of the article and of users who make edits to the article. I listed the article on Wikipedia:List of controversial issues, but that's not exactly the issue here. It almost seems like we need another category, something like Wikipedia:List of articles protected by trolls. older wiser 22:35, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Now he changed all references to himself, from sentences like "AZ is quoted as saying ..." to "-censored- is quoted as saying ...". I reverted all of his last edits. Chris 73 | (New) Talk 00:13, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
BTW, why does he have a page User talk:Andrew Zito AND Talk:Andrew zito? Seems when someone deleted the article Zito created about himself (Andrew zito), the talk page did not get deleted, too. -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 00:19, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have deleted the talk page now too. Incidentally it looks like a deliberate act as the vanity page was at Andrew Zito (capital Z) and the talk was at Talk:Andrew zito (small z). -- Graham :) | Talk 00:25, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Abusive userSSSS

DEAR WIKIED-AHOLES DELETE IT ALL CAUSE YOU ARE AHOLES BASTARDS JUST TELL ME HOW ONE CAN OFF ALL THE WIKIS LEGALLY FOR YOU ARE NOT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA AND ARE AN INSULT TO NORMAL INTELECT AS YOUR SHIT DOESN'T STINK EXCEPT YOU ARE FULL OF IT BYE NOW SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS AS YOU HAVE DEVELOPED ANOTHER LOVING RELATIONSHIP WITH WHICH YOU CAN REMEMBER WHEN YOU DROP DEAD. By the way for abuse look in the mirror ASSHOLE


I'm not sure what to do with Deism. I don't really know enough about the article to edit the content beyond obvious copyedits. However, one person, user:Andrew Zito, seems to have taken an intense interest in the article and issues profane abuse on the talk page of the article and of users who make edits to the article. I listed the article on Wikipedia:List of controversial issues, but that's not exactly the issue here. It almost seems like we need another category, something like Wikipedia:List of articles protected by trolls. older wiser 22:35, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Now he changed all references to himself, from sentences like "AZ is quoted as saying ..." to "-censored- is quoted as saying ...". I reverted all of his last edits. Chris 73 | (New) Talk 00:13, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
BTW, why does he have a page User talk:Andrew Zito AND Talk:Andrew zito? Seems when someone deleted the article Zito created about himself (Andrew zito), the talk page did not get deleted, too. -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 00:19, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have deleted the talk page now too. Incidentally it looks like a deliberate act as the vanity page was at Andrew Zito (capital Z) and the talk was at Talk:Andrew zito (small z). -- Graham :) | Talk 00:25, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mr Peepers

-> Talk:Mr. Peepers

New File upload page

-> MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext

Adult Content

-> Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer

People's What?

Correction made. See MediaWiki talk:Copyrightwarning

Short-toed in Granada Spain

moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk#Short-toed eagles in Granada Spain

Where to answer user talk page questions

I sometimes ask another user a question on his/her talk page. Some of the users respond on their talk page underneath my question, some on my talk page with a new heading. Is there a guideline where to answer, or is it up to the user? I thought it is easier if the entire conversation is on one page. -- chris 73 | Talk 11:54, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is because of an awkwardness of the software, but it's not easy to see how to improve it: when someone adds a comment to your talk page, you see a special "You have new messages" link at the top of every page loaded; whereas to track somebody else's talk page, you'd have to add it to your watchlist - which means that you will see every comment posted to that user, and every change to their user page, as well, until you unwatch it. Obviously, for a user who gets a lot of messages, this can be somewhat less than helpful; but the alternative, as you say, is that the conversation gets split into two incoherent halves.
What's more, with different people following different conventions, you don't know whether to assume they'll watch your talk page just because they added to it, so you more or less have to reply at theirs. That said, it might be possible to come up with a compromise: add a not to your talk page saying that if somebody is responding, they should make a trivial edit (so it triggers the notification) - or maybe list their name or something - and then reply on their own User_talk: page. That way the conversation stays together, but you know when it's been updated... - IMSoP 12:21, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
A good way to follow conversations on talk pages other than your own is to use the "My contributions" list. If there have been any edits to the talk page in question, your edit is no longer marked as "top". Explaining your preferred comment procedure on your talk page is a good idea.--Eloquence* 13:53, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
I answer on my talk page and then leave a note "I answered on my talk page" on theirs. It takes two edits instead of one but the conversation is in one place and their notification message gets triggered. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:00, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I alternate between the two. Originally, I mostly replied on the other person's talk page, these days I more often reply on my talk page. Replying on the other talk page is IMHO more courteous, and ensures that they will get the message as quickly as possible. Replying on your own talk page takes is easier for you because it requires less clicks. It keeps the discussion in one place and thus makes it easier to follow for others watching the discussion. So it depends on how lazy you are, what tone you want to set, and whether or not you want other people to be able to read the conversation at a glance. -- Tim Starling 15:13, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)


If you want to be sure the other person will get your message, you should reply on their talk page, or at least tell them on their talk page that you have replied elsewhere. You can't assume that people will have your talk page on their watchlist, so there's a chance they will never see your reply there. Angela.
Would it be an option to copy (not cut) the entire question and paste it onto the other talk page, and then write your answer underneath? If everybody did this, then both parties would have a complete copy of the conversation on their talk page. Of course, for longer conversations you copy only the part that is missing since the last exchange. -- chris 73 | Talk 15:58, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes, there's nothing stopping you doing that on your own page. It's up to the other user whether they also want a whole copy of it on their talk page though. Angela. 16:07, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
OK, I'll complete the half-conversations only on my page then, and still answer on the other persons page. Thanks. -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 16:28, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Change to Recent Changes (N to !)

Should recent changes display N or ! next to new pages? See MediaWiki talk:Newpageletter

Wik's increasingly crackpot behaviour

Section on the conduct of Wik started by Gene Poole before that user knew that arbitration was taking place. Move suggested by Anárion - to keep the discussion in one place, and away from the village pump - and carried out by IMSoP 13:14, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC); and seemingly Theresa knott, simultaneously.

Please continue the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik2#Discussion continued from Village pump

Wik's hate list

I know this is a drastic move, but look at Wik's hate list on his page. He calls many wikipedians morons and rude and he keeps adding new names as time goes by. This is bad and its bad for newcomers that see that. They might think that this IS a website made by morons and inmatures.

I know he has the right to do whatever he wants with his page but as I said, hes getting into borderline offensive and also calling names could be bad for would be wikipedians: They might get discouraged to visit us again.

Do we, as sysups, have the right to erase that list and protect his page so that he, who is not a sysup, can not insult us or call us names anymore? Shall we??

I ask this because I want to respect my rights as sysup and I dont want to commit something against the rules.

Thanks, and God bless you!

Antonio Wik's impossible fantasy Martin

I tend to think this is much ado about nothing. We all know Wik is cranky and doesn't really like most people. Is it really so harmful to anything except the pride of those he doesn't like that he does this? I find the arguments about what would-be wikipedians might think to be fairly unconvincing - it's unlikely they'll even look at Wik's user page in the first place, and I think one realizes pretty quickly that he's a curmudgeon, and to take his opinions of other wikipedians with at least a grain of salt. At any rate, Antonio, I have to say that your own behavior on wik's user page has not been to your credit. It would be justifiable, I think, to remove references to people as "Nazi POV pushers" and possibly as "morons'. It's not justifiable for you to add your own descriptions of yourself, and so forth. The shenanigans on Wik's user page have for the most part been much closer to vandalism than to proper activities. At any rate, I think Wik has the absolute right to make whatever list he wants on his user page. The "avoid personal attacks" guideline could arguably be said to apply only to talk page discussions, I think. And it's absolutely ridiculous to protect Wik's user page on a version he doesn't like and not allow him to edit his own user page. john 23:25, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No sooner is the topic archived then it is back! Could those interested in Wik's lists, or censoring them, please keep it at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik2#Discussion continued from Village pump or his talk page. Thanks. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 23:30, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Greek unicodes

I have placed a set of Greek alphabet unicodes at the foot of my User page for anyone who works on Greek-related articles and shares my inability to memorise them. Adam 03:12, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be best to use HTML entities, for backwards compatibility? Dysprosia 10:28, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Plus they are a lot easier to remember.theresa knott 11:01, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
HTML entities are hard to edit and look ugly in the editing window, not to mention that they are SGML only, and that Unicode can just be copied&pasted in any text editor. — Jor (Talk) 12:21, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
What was wrong with the Unicode tables in the Greek alphabet article? Gdr 11:56, 2004 Apr 23 (UTC)
There is nothing inherently wrong with Unicode, but most people who are on non-Unicode compliant systems can't see Unicode glyphs. Dysprosia 12:05, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
But people using those archaic systems won't be able to access most non-US ASCII websites anyway. Why punish everyone to cator to a very small minority which probably has no interest in reading Greek in the first place? — Jor (Talk) 12:21, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


That doesn't mean we should actively seek to prevent users on different, non-Unicode-compatible systems from reading the text. I was somewhat sure that Windows 9x versions were not natively Unicode compatible, but [15] seems to suggest that this is the case.
In any case, how are the HTML entities "punishment" in comparison to the Unicode glyphs? One would think that the numerical Unicode entity would be more painful to enter than the slightly more intuitive HTML text-based entity... Dysprosia 12:53, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You can't save unicode characters into articles on en, the encoding is ISO 8859-1. If you paste in a unicode character, or type it somehow, most browsers will automatically convert it to a numeric character entity. You can type in unicode if you wish, but it means that numeric character entities will be saved (e.g. &#945;) rather than the more readable named character entities, e.g. &alpha;. Unicode support in browsers is irrelevant. -- Tim Starling 01:15, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think the named entities are really necessary for typing Greek text: they exist mostly as a coincidental accident because of the fact that Greek letters are used as symbols in a lot of other areas. We type Cyrillic using the numeric entities, for example, because that's the only way to do it, and it doesn't seem like doing the same for Greek is somehow worse. Furthermore, it is not possible to write correct Greek text using only the named entities, because no entities are provided for accented characters, and nearly every Greek word has at least one accent in it (and spelling it without the accent is not correct). Writing a word using all named entities except for one numeric entity in the middle would be kind of odd. --Delirium 02:50, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Main Page: Where is it?

I tried to get into the Standard Main Page, but it wasn't there. Why is that? JB82 04:03, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

CLARIFICATION I clicked on the logo on the upper left of my User page and I got the Main Page. It's just when I type in the address, that's all. JB82 04:09, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What did you type? RickK 04:27, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Interwikis on fr:

There are 16,000 articles on the French Wikipedia without an interwiki to the English Wikipedia. A list is available at http://mboquien.free.fr/nointerwiki.gz You need an edito that can read unicode. --Youssef 16:22, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can't seem to open that file. Would someone take the list and put it up on wikipedia somewhere? (On en or fr) - I imagine it would need to be split up into pages of 1000 links... that way we could update it as well, especially if we were to work through it, deleting from the list as they're done. fabiform | talk 16:45, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
And as if by magic, (the) Angela appears: meta:Articles on fr with no interwiki link to en. Thanks! fabiform | talk 16:54, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
(groan) As a punishment for dragging out this hackneyed line, I sentence you to writing a much-needed stub for Mr. Benn. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:25, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Heh, OK, punishment accepted. I'll do that tomorrow. Does my memory deceive me, or did you make an awful "I can't believe it's not butter" pun on Jimbo's april fool's admin nomination? I'm sure you deserve something pretty bad if that was the case. ;) fabiform | talk 21:46, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Neat, OK, I'm hooking up some articles which exist in both Wikipedias but don't have the appropriate Interwiki links. --Stormie 06:50, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Abusive user

(Snip Profanity by User:Andrew Zito -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 04:09, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Sad. Good snip. Maybe we should have an automated facility triggered by use of all capitals (screaming) that waits an hour or so, and then quietly reverts all edits (including the scream) made by the user or IP in the previous four hours or so? (;-> Just an idea. Andrewa 19:13, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do with Deism. I don't really know enough about the article to edit the content beyond obvious copyedits. However, one person, user:Andrew Zito, seems to have taken an intense interest in the article and issues profane abuse on the talk page of the article and of users who make edits to the article. I listed the article on Wikipedia:List of controversial issues, but that's not exactly the issue here. It almost seems like we need another category, something like Wikipedia:List of articles protected by trolls. older wiser 22:35, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Now he changed all references to himself, from sentences like "AZ is quoted as saying ..." to "-censored- is quoted as saying ...". I reverted all of his last edits. Chris 73 | (New) Talk 00:13, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
BTW, why does he have a page User talk:Andrew Zito AND Talk:Andrew zito? Seems when someone deleted the article Zito created about himself (Andrew zito), the talk page did not get deleted, too. -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 00:19, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have deleted the talk page now too. Incidentally it looks like a deliberate act as the vanity page was at Andrew Zito (capital Z) and the talk was at Talk:Andrew zito (small z). -- Graham :) | Talk 00:25, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dead-end pages

Who do I ask to run the Special:Deadendpages again? I've un-deadended a number of them, and am hoping to maybe see "D". --Brockert 22:37, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

You could try asking at Wikipedia:SQL query requests. Angela. 22:44, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, according to that page, it looks like it should be at Wikipedia:Scripting requests - which already lists a request for this from a long time ago. - IMSoP 22:56, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If you check the dates, you'll find that Special:Deadendpages was updated on April 20, while that request is from March 29. -- Cyrius|&#9998 23:11, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
I think the request is still there because the page wasn't updated as a result of that request. Until a couple of days ago it was possible to recreate some of these special pages using a "magic" parameter, but it was disabled. Angela. 23:25, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Really Long Lists

In the biography for Kylie Minogue, there is an very long list of all her 45rpms and albums. Similar such listings can be found for many other singers/actresses/authors and the like. At the same time, in the biography of Jack Pickford, there was a partial list of films he appeared in that was removed by User:Frecklefoot with the reason "commented out overlong filmograph." I’m fairly new here so don’t want to do things that established and valuable contributors have determined as unacceptable. I'm starting on a biography for silent film actress Pauline White but because I am now not certain what is proper, can someone tell me if I should follow User:Frecklefoot's policy when I create new biographies and not include a filmography/list of albums/45s/CDs, or books etc? Similarly, if I edit an existing biography, should I also delete the filmography, list of albums/45s/CDs, books etc? Jill

This was hashed out a while ago. I probably did comment out a very long list (if I deleted it, it can be retreived via the pages history). I dislike really long lists in article, especially filmographies when the information is available via other sites, such as the IMDb. I find that they add little but clutter to articles. However, it was decided that very long lists should go on a seperate page, such as [[List of John Doe's movies]]. Most felt that Wikipedia should not rely on outside websites for complete information. So, if its a really long list, put it on a seperate page. If it's fairly brief, it can go in the main article. I hope this clears things up. :-) —Frecklefoot 19:43, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
A rule to consider: Suppose you create [[List of Xs relating to Y]]. If the only page that will link to it is Y then you may as well have List Of Y thingies on the Y page, otherwise you are just making navigation unnecessarily difficult for the user for the sake of bumping up the page count by 1. The 32k page size caveat still applies even to list pages though - long edit pages hinder some browsers. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 20:54, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Article in a Day/Week idea

Anyone like the sound of this? Over a certain timeframe, we have a specific featured non-article which either didn't exist or was a very basic stub to begin with. The idea being that within a day, a week or whatever the article gets to Featured Article standard, or as close as possible.

It could help fill in big missing gaps in Wikipedia, and would also give users something to concentrate and work on collaboratively.

Any thoughts? Tom- 21:56, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, and it is something that seems to be working well on some other Wikipedias. See fr:Wikipédia:Article de la semaine, ro:Wikipedia:Articolul săptămânii and sv:Wikipedia:Veckans artikel for example. There is also the related Qualitätsoffensive on the German Wikipedia. Angela. 22:40, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
Interesting, FR changes every week, DE every two. So some questions that need answering for EN are...
  • How would the article be picked? Public vote?
  • How often should it be changed? Every day? 2 days? Week? Or "when it's good enough"?
  • Where should the article be featured?
Tom- 22:53, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How does this differ from the 5 requested articles listed at the top of Recent Changes? Even when we have a wider range of choices (as opposed to one, possibly very narrow and boring ONE), we -- as a group -- don't really work on them. Reducing the # from 5 to 1 would just be more restrictive to people's interest.

In any case, it's impossible to get a stub or non-existent article to be feature article-standard in 1 day. Maybe 3. --Menchi 00:17, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Surely the reason nobody edits those is that they don't really notice them. Sure, there's always plenty of articles we could write. The idea of an "article of the week" is surely to get lots of people to focus on it, and turn it into a kind of event, something to be proud of and that people will appreciate an individuals work on. At heart, it's an incentive scheme, like offering WikiMoney. - IMSoP 10:51, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I like the idea. How about a week? About selection, maybe 2 or three people (Tom should certainly be one of them if he agrees) decide on what article to select. Any user can nominate an article to be "featured" and the selectors pick it. The page to be written is then advertised. That work? LUDRAMAN | T 19:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think a week would probably be the best idea, at least to begin with. Could we not just have a public vote? Anyone can vote on an existing suggestion, or add a new suggestion? Tom- 13:16, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ya. We may as well go on ahead and try it. I nominate either Duet or Duo as our first project. Tom, its probably your choice as it was your idea. How about the two or three "selectors" idea? LUDRAMAN | T 19:00, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Requested articles subpages

On Wikipedia: requested articles I want to move the requested article subpages to the main page; they are repetitive (eg. science) and they are confusing.

Is there any reason why I shouldn't do this? (I will copy and paste). Bensaccount 22:56, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This should not be done in my opinion. Wikipedia:Requested articles would be 132kb if you merged the subpages into it. See also Wikipedia talk:Requested articles. Angela. 00:28, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed the problem - I made some better subpage categories. Bensaccount 00:56, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Help needed at requested articles. There are old subcategories ie. Countries, Media, Military, Music were replicas. Can an admistrator move these subcategories to their proper place ie. move "Music" to "Culture and Fine Arts", and then delete the old subcategories? (I already moved the pages up until "Military") Bensaccount 01:12, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

East Turkestan

Does anyone know much about East Turkestan/Xinjiang? I can't say I do, but the article doesn't look very NPOV, and it keeps getting added to lists of countries, List of national flags, that sort of thing when it appears to just be a Chinese province. Scurra 17:54, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The matter is definitely a controversial one. While the area is certainly recognised internationally as part of China, it has a fairly strong independence movement - not nearly as well known in the West as the Tibetan one is, but of a similar background. Even the name "Xinjiang" is regarded as objectionable by many of the independence-seekers, as it's a Chinese (not Uighur) term, and means something like "new borderland", "new province", or "new frontier". So I would anticipate disputes over how to describe it. I imagine that the eventual solution will resemble that for Tibet (whatever that might be). As for the current situation - I agree that the East Turkestan article could probably use some work, yes. And the Xinjiang article should probably talk a bit more about the separatist movements. -- Vardion 23:17, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Facebook

This is going to stir up a helleva hornet's nest, I know, but it's been quiet here lately. About two months ago, someone asked about the possibility of compiling pictures of wikipedians. Well, long story short, I did it - User:Raul654/facebook is the end result. I wanted to get community opinions. On a wikiettiquite note - one user noticed it before now and objected to his picture being there; I told him to go ahead and remove it. Personally, I think it's pretty neat - I find it much nicer being able to associate a face with a name. →Raul654 17:16, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

PS - I think I am going to move it to Wikipedia:Facebook and let people add their pictures there voluntarily. But first, I just wanted to get a proof of concept going and get some community feedback. →Raul654 18:01, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
Interesting, a lot of Wikipedians are a lot more attractive than I imagined them to be! It'd be easier to use if thumbnails and tables (with a few images in each row) were employed. That'd be my only suggestion. And perhaps a link to the user's page. —Frecklefoot 18:23, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with frecklefoot. If you laid it out well with a colourful background it would look really well. LUDRAMAN | T 18:35, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Good job, Raul. I second Frecklefoot's proposed enhancements. Niteowlneils 19:32, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
To be on the right side of cautionness and courtesy, I think it would be appropiate to ask each user on their talk page whether they were happy with using pictures. I know each user has uploaded the pic so are probably ok with it, but it is reasonable to ask.
More generally I think this is somehow ok in a way the WikiSex debacle wasn't. It's another one of those situations where the dividing line between appropiate and not is not well-defined, but you can tell what side of appropiate something falls when you see it.
From other forums I know that having pictures of people can change the behaviour of other users, particularly immature ones, for the worse, so I think if Wikipedia needs to have a policy on it, it should be "you are free to add to this [facebook] page if you want to, but it is not actively encouraged".
<parrot mode> This obviously should be on meta, not in the Wikipedia: namespace </parrot mode>
And my piece of feedback, how the heck am I supposed to have constructive debates with Cimon now... he looks far too wellard.
Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 19:26, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Just a couple notes. First, I have moved it to Wikipedia:Facebook -- everyone, feel free to add yourselves. Second, it couldn't go on Meta because the pictures themselves aren't on Meta, they're only on en (and I refuse to upload them, that's an invasion of their privacy). →Raul654 06:38, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
Looks great. I've added my favourite self-portrait from my website. I never felt any urge to put it on my user page, but in a rogues' gallery I think it feels quite at home. Andrewa 02:47, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Image fair use?

I'm not entirely clear on the guidelines laid out in Image use policy. If I wanted to add (a smaller version of) this picture to the article On Your Mark (about a Japanese animated music video), would that be allowed? I believe that image is from a calendar; if I posted an actual frame from the music video itself, would that fall under fair use? I see professional movie reviewers using shots from movies all the time, must they always have special permission? If I copied a Disney park photo from a Disney park web site, would it be fair use to put that image on a Wikipedia article about the park? I have trouble seeing how the reproduction of any image here on Wikipedia would cause any sort of financial harm to the owner of the image, and an image would often help make an article clearer - what's a good rule of thumb to use in deciding whether my intentions for an image fall under 'fair use' or not? Brian Kendig 19:14, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Brian, if you've not found it already, Wikipedia:Fair use is probably the best place to read about (and posit regarding) fair use. It's a minefield, not least becase different countries have different concepts of the doctrine. I'd guess that what you plan would be okay, but the folks who hang out there will know better. Oh, if you do upload it, can you see if you can "descreen" it (as whoever scanned it didn't, making it look lumpy)? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:54, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. Can you give me examples of when adding an image to Wikipedia would definitely NOT be covered under fair use? Brian Kendig 05:52, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sure, in most cases. Just lifting a picture off the Intenet is usually not covered under fair use (despite the fact that there are numerous websites that have lifted images themselves). For example, we don't even have a photo of Princess Diana because most photos of her are copyrighted. Images from things like video games, movies (including covers and posters) are covered under fair use. Use of professional photos is not. If you have any more questions about fair use, consult Wikipedia:Fair use like Finlay suggested. Any further questions about fair use, you can post there. —Frecklefoot 14:16, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
And another question: When I try to upload an image, I have to check the checkbox which says "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." I can't check this box: I have a feeling that if I contact the makers of the anime of which I want to upload a photo, they'll flatly deny my request so that they can cover their own tails, because there's no benefit to them in supporting Wikipedia at all. How do you balance "fair use" of an image with the fact that there's no reason why a copyright holder should agree to help Wikipedia? Does "fair use" of an image ever override the copyright holder's unwillingness to bother with anything but his own interests? Has anyone pursued the copyright owners of a copyrighted image and had them say, "Sure, go ahead and use our picture"? Brian Kendig 06:20, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Most of the website owners I've contacted are more than happy to let us use their images, as long as we attribute the image to them. This is the upside for them--free publicity. And the attribution doesn't have to be glaring--I usually just put it on the image page. For an example, see this image. —Frecklefoot 14:16, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
So you're saying all that matters is permission from whoever made the image file, not from the copyright owner of what's in the picture? I'm not sure I'm clear on this... for example, the original artwork of that Defender of the Crown box is doubtlessly still under copyright (especially since another company bought the rights and released a new version of the game for GameBoy two years ago). Wouldn't you have had to find and contact the copyright owners of the original game before you could check the checkbox on the upload page to affirm that they approve its image being posted to Wikipedia? If not, then what's keeping me from taking a picture of anything - like, taking a picture of a copyrighted photo of Princess Diana - and uploading it to Wikipedia with permission to use my picture?
What I'm most confused about is that the image upload page "the copyright holder agrees to license it" checkbox seems to require me to contact whoever owns the original material being pictured, and would preclude "fair use" of the image without explicit permission, since it requires you to know that the copyright holder gives you permission. The image I want to upload to On Your Mark is from a calendar; is it enough to get permission from the person who took a picture of the calendar, or do I have to get permission from the calendar's publisher? I have an mpeg file of of an animated short from which I want to post a picture to Studio Gainax, but I don't see how I can check that checkbox without convincing the company's lawyers that they should grant use of their images to Wikipedia. Brian Kendig 15:15, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Facebook

-> Wikipedia talk:Facebook

Yet another Wikipedia: page

Following from someone's suggestion, I started Wikipedia:Great editing in progress intended as a counterpoint to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Please consider watchlisting it, or commenting on the idea at its talk page. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:06, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

msgs

Is there something wrong with the "msg" translation? PUtting msgs on pages doesn't cause them to be translated. RickK 05:32, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Such as where? I haven't noticed anything. Dori | Talk 05:36, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
I tried adding msg:protected to Schnorrer and it wouldn't translate, but it seemed to work when I did it again. But there were a couple of other cases earlier today that I don't remember right now. RickK 05:40, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think you had a space in between msg: and protected the first time, that's probably why. Dori | Talk 05:45, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

Article in a Day/Week idea

New proposal: Wikipedia:Article of the week.

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Article of the week.

Really Long Lists

How long should filmographies be? Should they go at a separate page such as [[List of John Doe's movies]]? See Wikipedia talk:List.

Contribution statistics

Is there a way to find the current number of contributions of a particular user instantly? The way I do it now is to use the <next n> link successively from User contributions page and using lesser and lesser values of 'n' when the limit is reached until I get a page of 19 or less edits after which I manually count. This method - I found is rather ridiculous , and painstakingly slow. Is there a better way ? Why don't we have a line saying something like Displaying 500-550 of 4832 contributions or something similar. I would even prefer to have the number of minor edits, Talk Page edits, and other non-namespace edits displayed separately. I wasn't sure if there was a reason this has not been implemented yet. If people find this a good idea, can this be a new feature request? Thanks. Chancemill 13:53, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

i do not second that request: that will lead to Slashdot-like karma whoring (i have more edits than you, etc.). Have you seen this list? Anárion 14:08, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yup, I have seen that, but it is not frequently updated and does not contain everybody's statistics on the page. One needs to actually download this (also dated) csv file and do some tinkering with it to find where one stands. Reg the karma whoring problem - it is not that counting the number of contributions is impossible now per se. Actually, I did find a better method of doing it - by approximating the number of contributions in the URL text at appropriate places. I don't think it is going to hurt to make this easier. The reason why I bounced upon this question, was that I found self-evaluation of my own contributions very tricky. For example, how useful was I in the past month? How much of my time here was on content addition and how much on Talk Page wars/niceties etc ? But, that's just me. Anybody else thinking the same? Cheers Chancemill 14:29, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

At a unix prompt, try curl "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&target=***username in question***t&limit=50000&offset=0" | wc and then subtract 49 from the first number (line count). That's the fastest method I know of. Nohat 18:51, 2004 Apr 28 (UTC)

If that is the way to find the number of edits, probably I'll write up the PHP code sometimes soon:-) --Rrjanbiah 04:32, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have been meaning to add a statistics field to the user table for a while now. A nice big blob, where we can break down edits by hour of the day and by namespace. The current two SQL queries required to count contributions are easier on the database than using Special:Contributions, especially for more active contributors. But it still takes as much as a minute or two. Keeping track in the user table shouldn't be difficult. --Tim Starling
Hmmm.. sounds like a nice idea. BTW, the stats code is ready at my user page :-) --Rrjanbiah 10:46, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)